Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, requiring an inquiry into both the relevance and reliability of expert testimony, applies to all expert testimony, including that based on 'technical' or 'other specialized' knowledge, not just 'scientific' testimony. The specific factors for assessing reliability outlined in Daubert are flexible and their applicability depends on the particular circumstances of the case at the trial court's discretion.
Facts:
- On July 6, 1993, a minivan driven by Patrick Carmichael experienced a right rear tire blowout, causing an accident in which one passenger died and others were severely injured.
- The Carmichaels had purchased the used minivan in March 1993, and the tire, manufactured by Kumho Tire in 1988, was already installed.
- The tire was visibly worn, with tread depth ranging from 1/32 of an inch to completely bald in some areas.
- The tire also had at least two punctures that had been inadequately repaired.
- The Carmichaels retained Dennis Carlson, Jr., an expert in tire failure analysis, to support their claim that the tire was defective.
- Carlson concluded a manufacturing or design defect caused the tire's tread to separate from its carcass.
- Carlson's methodology was based on a visual and tactile inspection to look for four specific signs of tire misuse (overdeflection).
- Carlson's theory was that if he did not find at least two of the four signs of misuse, the separation must have been caused by a defect.
Procedural Posture:
- The Carmichaels filed a product liability lawsuit against Kumho Tire Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
- Kumho Tire filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the Carmichaels' expert, Dennis Carlson, arguing his methodology was unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- The District Court, acting as a gatekeeper, granted the motion to exclude Carlson's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Kumho Tire.
- On appeal by the Carmichaels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the District Court erred by applying the Daubert standard, reasoning that Daubert was limited to 'scientific' testimony and did not apply to Carlson's 'skill- or experience-based' testimony.
- Kumho Tire appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to resolve uncertainty among lower courts about how Daubert applies to non-scientific experts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's 'gatekeeping' obligation under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to ensure expert testimony is reliable apply to testimony from non-scientific experts, such as engineers, who base their opinions on skill or experience rather than scientific principles?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, a trial court's gatekeeping obligation applies to all expert testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 makes no relevant distinction between 'scientific' knowledge and 'technical' or 'other specialized' knowledge, so its reliability standard applies to all. It would be impractical for judges to distinguish between 'scientific' and 'technical' expertise, as many fields like engineering rest on scientific principles. The objective of the gatekeeping requirement is to ensure that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field. The Daubert factors (testing, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance) are not a definitive checklist but a flexible set of tools a judge may use to assess reliability, and the trial court has broad discretion in deciding how to determine reliability.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, the gatekeeping function applies to all experts. The discretion granted to trial courts in choosing how to test expert reliability is not discretion to abandon the gatekeeping function or to perform it inadequately. It is the discretion to choose among reasonable means of excluding unreliable expertise. In some cases, a trial court's failure to apply one or more of the Daubert factors could be an abuse of that discretion.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Yes, a trial judge may consider the Daubert factors in analyzing the admissibility of an engineering expert's testimony. The majority correctly answers this legal question. However, the Court should not have proceeded to decide whether the trial judge in this specific case abused his discretion. That fact-intensive inquiry is better suited for the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court should have remanded the case for that court to perform the analysis.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the trial judge's gatekeeping role established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by extending it to all expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, not just novel scientific evidence. By rejecting a rigid distinction between 'scientific' and 'technical' or 'experience-based' expertise, the Court created a unified standard for admissibility, granting trial judges broad discretion to apply a flexible reliability analysis. This decision empowers courts to scrutinize the methodologies of a wide range of experts, from engineers and mechanics to accountants and other specialists, thereby preventing the admission of unreliable 'junk science' regardless of its classification. Consequently, it requires litigators to be prepared to defend the reliability of their experts' methods, whatever their field.
Unlock the full brief for Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael