Plaintiff s expert, on which plaintiff s case substantially rested, had examined the tire and concluded that the tire failure was caused by a manufacturing defect, not road abuse. That expert based his conclusion on a visual and tactile examination of the tire and on his theory that, in the absence of at least two of four specific indicators of tire abuse, the cause of the failure must have been a manufacturing defect. The trial judge found that the engineer s method for determining that the particular tire involved had failed because of a manufacturing defect was insufficiently reliable, and excluded the proposed testimony. The Court upheld the trial judge s ruling, finding that the ruling was reasonable. Whenever accountants testify about lost future profits, economists testify about lost future income, appraisers testify about fair market value, engineers testify about design feasibility, doctors and lawyers testify about standards of care, and police officers testify about the characteristics of drug rings and street gangs, the trial judge may need to determine whether the testimony is sufficiently reliable to be admissible.
Several things stand out.
While the trial judge has discretion to hold a pretrial hearing on admissibility or defer deciding the issue until trial, careful judges are likely to prefer the pretrial hearing whenever a party raises a serious objection to proposed expert witness testimony. Now the trial judge, and lawyers, must look beyond the expert s credentials. Third, methodology and conclusions are now paramount. Whether the expert testimony is based on scientific tests and methods, or is based on the expert s testimony or other specialized knowledge, the trial judge must determine if the analytical approach the expert took in reaching the opinions and conclusions is sufficiently reliable. Fourth, winning in the trial court is key.