Opinion ID: 894792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliability of Elwell's Testimony

Text: An expert witness may testify regarding scientific, technical, or other specialized matters if the expert is qualified and if the expert's opinion is relevant and based on a reliable foundation. TEX. R. EVID. 702; Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 499 (Tex.2001); Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556. In determining whether expert testimony is reliable, a court should examine the principles, research, and methodology underlying an expert's conclusions. Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex.2002). When the testimony involves scientific knowledge, the expert's conclusions must be grounded `in the methods and procedures of science.' Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557 (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)). Otherwise, the testimony is no more than `subjective belief or unsupported speculation.' Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786). We have identified several non-exclusive factors that trial courts should consider when determining the reliability of expert testimony involving scientific knowledge. [6] We recognize that these factors may not apply when testimony is not scientific, but, rather, involves technical or other specialized knowledge. Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, 972 S.W.2d 713, 726 (Tex.1998). Even then, however, there must be some basis for the opinion to show its reliability. Id. An expert's bare opinion will not suffice. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.1997). And, there cannot be `too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.' Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 726 (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)). A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether expert testimony is admissible. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 629. Its ruling will be reversed only if that discretion is abused. K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357, 360 (Tex.2000). Because the party sponsoring the expert bears the burden of showing that the expert's testimony is admissible, the burden of presenting understandable evidence that will persuade the trial court is on the presenting party. See Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. When an expert's processes or methodologies are obscured or concealed by testimony that is excessively internally contradictory, non-responsive or evasive, a trial court will not have abused its discretion in determining that the expert's testimony is not admissible. See GMC v. Iracheta, 161 S.W.3d 462, 470-72 (Tex.2005).
The court of appeals noted that Elwell's testimony largely applied his knowledge, training, and experience to the underlying data and that his methodology was not easily tested by objective criteria such as identifiable scientific formulas. The court of appeals concluded that under such circumstances the reliability of Elwell's opinion is not properly measured by a Robinson -factor analysis, but that the analytical gap test should be applied. 100 S.W.3d at 555-56. Mack argues that the court of appeals' analysis is flawed. Mack urges that Elwell's inability to demonstrate at least one of the Robinson factors, coupled with his inability to eliminate the crude oil tanker as the source of the fire, rendered Elwell's testimony unreliable. The Tamezes, on the other hand, argue that because Elwell's testimony was based on his training and experience, and not science, application of the analytical gap test, as opposed to use of Robinson factors, was appropriate. They contend that Elwell's opinion was reliable because there were no analytical gaps in his testimony. See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 726. In Gammill we clarified that the list of non-exclusive factors listed in Robinson may not be applicable when assessing certain kinds of expert testimony. 972 S.W.2d at 720. We held that Robinson factors did not apply to the mechanical engineer expert under consideration in Gammill, even though his claimed expertise was scientific in nature. Id. at 727. In so holding, however, we did not mean to imply that a trial court should never consider the Robinson factors when evaluating the reliability of expert testimony that is based on knowledge, training or experience, or that the factors can only be applied when evaluating scientific expert testimony. We recognized that the criteria for assessing reliability must vary depending on the nature of the evidence. Id. at 726. The United States Supreme Court has noted that it is not possible to rule out, nor rule in, for all cases and for all time the applicability of the factors mentioned in Daubert.  Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Nor can the Court now do so for subsets of cases categorized by category of expert or by kind of evidence, as [t]oo much depends upon the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue. Id. In Robinson we likewise explained that the factors mentioned do not constitute an exclusive list and that the trial court's gatekeeping inquiry will differ with each particular case depending on the [t]he factors a trial court will find helpful in determining whether the underlying theories and techniques . . . are scientifically reliable. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. Thus, a trial court should consider the factors mentioned in Robinson when doing so will be helpful in determining reliability of an expert's testimony, regardless of whether the testimony is scientific in nature or experience-based. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 139, 119 S.Ct. 1167; Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 726. In determining reliability, the trial court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand. See Amorgianos v. Amtrak, 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir.2002). A significant part of the trial court's gatekeeper function is to evaluate the expert's qualifications, listen to the testimony, view the evidence, and determine which factors and evaluation methodology are most appropriate to apply. For example, in the present case the trial court would have been within its discretion to measure the reliability of Elwell's testimony, at least in part, by considering (1) the extent to which Elwell's theory had been or could be tested; (2) the extent to which his methodology relied upon his subjective interpretation; (3) the methodology's potential rate of error; (4) whether the underlying theory or methodology has been generally accepted as valid by the accident reconstruction and post-collision fire investigation community; and (5) the non-judicial uses that have been made of his methodology. These are similar to factors 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of those enumerated in Robinson. But, as we have said above, that is not to imply that the trial court was precluded from measuring Elwell's methodology by Gammill's analytical gap analysis.
At the Robinson hearing, Elwell testified that the fuel and battery system on the tractor were designed improperly, and suggested safer designs. He criticized the placement of the fuel tanks and also of the batteries' [7] proximity to the fuel tanks. He criticized certain parts of the fuel system such as the crossover or balance line hose between the two fuel tanks and the spigots by which the hose was attached to each of the tanks. He referenced a particular report, which was not introduced, which he asserted supported his design critiques and his suggested safer designs. Elwell's analysis and conclusion that the fire began with the fuel system and the battery system were based on the fire triangle theory. He explained that under the fire triangle theory, a post-collision fuel-fed fire such as the one under consideration must be analyzed with an eye toward the ignition, fuel, and oxygen sources that were available. Because the air provided oxygen, his analysis centered on the other parts required to complete the triangle, the source of fluids that could be ignited and what would it take to ignite those fluids and fuel, of course, is the primary suspect, either fuel or crude oil in this particular case. He did not testify that he inspected the remnants of the burned tractor and trailer or that he performed or reviewed any accident reconstruction analysis as to how the rollover occurred and how different parts of the vehicle would have been affected or harmed thereby. His Robinson hearing testimony did not identify a particular alleged defect of the tractor's fuel system that he concluded was the source of a diesel fuel leak that initiated the fire. On cross-examination he testified that he had read and relied on over 5,000 studies on the subject of the causes of post-collision fuel-fed fires. He did not specify any studies that supported his conclusion as to the specifics involved in the accident, and none were offered as evidence for the trial court to consider in evaluating his testimony. In coming to his conclusion that the fire began with the fuel system and battery system of the tractor, Elwell asserted that he relied on several specific factors and facts. Each of the factors and facts he enumerated supported conclusions that Tamez was burned by diesel and that the diesel ignited so quickly that Tamez could not escape. Even assuming that what Elwell relied on and classified as factors and facts were true, however, which Mack denies, the factors and facts are merely consistent with diesel fuel having been released during the rollover and Tamez having been burned by part of the fire fed by the tractor's diesel fuel. They are not probative evidence that diesel fuel was released because of one of the asserted defects in the fuel system or that it was ignited by the battery system. He did not testify to having analyzed, tested, or investigated the characteristics of batteries like the battery in the wrecked tractor to support his opinion that the battery system was involved in causing the fire. He failed to set out any process by which he excluded other sources for ignition of the diesel fuel such as mechanical sparks which could be generated when parts of a truck make contact with the pavement, or ignition of the cargo fuel which in turn could have ignited the diesel fuel. See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 728; see also Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 559 (noting that an expert who is trying to find a cause of something should carefully consider alternative causes). For example, when Elwell was asked during the Robinson hearing why he concluded that the fire originated with the fuel and battery systems instead of with the crude oil cargo, his response was that if [crude oil] remains to be burned, that after five or ten or fifteen minutes, then that's not the fuel that started the fire. He did not explain any investigation or research that supported such a conclusion. He did not elaborate on the amount of crude that was in the trailer when the wreck occurred, calculate the amount of time it would take the cargo to burn, or discuss or compare the relative ease of ignition or flash points of the crude and diesel fuel. He did not address any analysis or process by which he concluded that some part of a trailer of crude oil would continue to burn for several minutes only if it was ignited by, rather than being the ignitor of, diesel fuel from the tractor's fuel system. In sum, Elwell did not testify at the Robinson hearing to a methodology by which he reached the conclusions as to the fire having been caused by defects in the tractor's fuel and battery systems. In order for Elwell's testimony on causation to be reliable, he was required to present some methodology that reliably supported his opinions that the fuel and ignition parts of the fire triangle were supplied, respectively, by the tractor's alleged fuel system defects and battery system. He did not do so. The mere fact that the fuel system had a design that could cause the hoses to separate is not evidence that the hoses separated in this case. Elwell's testimony did no more than set out factors and facts which were consistent with his opinions, then conclude that the fire began with diesel fuel from the tractor. The reliability inquiry as to expert testimony does not ask whether the expert's conclusions appear to be correct; it asks whether the methodology and analysis used to reach those conclusions is reliable. Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Helton, 133 S.W.3d 245, 254 (Tex.2004). The trial court was not required to accept his opinions at face value just because Elwell was experienced in examining post-collision fuel-fed fires. See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 726 (holding that a court should not admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Elwell's testimony on causation. The court of appeals erred when it determined otherwise.