Opinion ID: 1572837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: daubert-robinson-havner

Text: In Daubert, the Supreme Court considered the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial.  Daubert, 509 U.S. at 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, (emphasis added). Daubert' s focus is on the trial court's discretion, when faced with an objection to scientific evidence, to admit or exclude such evidence before or during the trial. The Supreme Court added that when the trial court concludes that the disputed scientific evidence is insufficient to go to the jury, the trial court may grant a summary judgment or a directed verdict. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786. However, Daubert does not support the proposition that a reviewing court can in effect exclude expert testimony that was not objected to based on its scientific reliability before trial or when it was offered at trial and then render judgment against the offering party. Similarly, in Robinson, we granted DuPont's application for writ of error to decide the appropriate standard for the admission of scientific expert testimony. See Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 554 (emphasis added). Like the Supreme Court in Daubert, we recognized the special nature of scientific expert testimony. See Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 554-58. We then explained the trial court's role as a gatekeeper, and recognized that [t]he trial court is responsible for making the preliminary determination of whether the proffered testimony meets the standards [for scientific reliability]. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556. Like Daubert, Robinson' s focus is on a trial court's discretion in admitting or excluding scientific evidence after a party lodges an objection to the reliability of its opponent's scientific expert testimony before trial or when the evidence is offered. See Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. Under Havner, a party may complain on appeal that scientific evidence is unreliable and thus, no evidence to support a judgment. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706. Havner recognizes that a no evidence complaint may be sustained when the record shows one of the following: (a) a complete absence of a vital fact; (b) the reviewing court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (c) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more that a mere scintilla; or (d) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 711 (citing Robert W. Calvert, No Evidence and Insufficient Evidence Points of Error, 38 Tex. L.Rev. 361, 362-63 (1960)). Here, like in Havner, Maritime contends that because Ellis's scientific evidence is not reliable, it is not evidence, and the court of appeals and this Court are barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to Ellis's experts' testimony. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 711, 713.