Opinion ID: 2628343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The assistance requirement of NRS 50.275

Text: If a person is qualified to testify as an expert under NRS 50.275, the district court must then determine whether his or her expected testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. An expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact only when it is relevant [15] and the product of reliable methodology. [16] In determining whether an expert's opinion is based upon reliable methodology, a district court should consider whether the opinion is (1) within a recognized field of expertise; [17] (2) testable and has been tested; [18] (3) published and subjected to peer review; [19] (4) generally accepted in the scientific community (not always determinative); [20] and (5) based more on particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, or generalization. [21] If the expert formed his or her opinion based upon the results of a technique, experiment, or calculation, then a district court should also consider whether (1) the technique, experiment, or calculation was controlled by known standards; [22] (2) the testing conditions were similar to the conditions at the time of the incident; [23] (3) the technique, experiment, or calculation had a known error rate; [24] and (4) it was developed by the proffered expert for purposes of the present dispute. [25] We again note that these factors are not exhaustive, may be accorded varying weights, and may not apply equally in every case. After reviewing the above factors, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed Dr. Bowles to testify because his biomechanical testimony and report did not assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. Trade winds did not offer any evidence that biomechanics was within a recognized field of expertise. Moreover, Trade winds did not introduce any evidence demonstrating that Dr. Bowles' biomechanical opinion was capable of being tested or that it had been tested. Additionally, Tradewinds did not present any evidence that Dr. Bowles' theories had been published or subjected to peer review. While Dr. Bowles had published a variety of articles on biomechanical topics, Tradewinds did not introduce any evidence that those articles were relevant to determining Hallmark's specific injuries. Tradewinds also did not offer any evidence showing that these types of opinions were generally accepted in the scientific community. Further, his opinion was highly speculative because he conceded that he formed it without knowing (1) the vehicles' starting positions, (2) their speeds at impact, (3) the length of time that the vehicles were in contact during impact, or (4) the angle at which the vehicles collided. [26] Additionally, Tradewinds did not introduce any evidence that Dr. Bowles attempted to re-create the collision by performing an experiment, so we cannot address whether his opinion was the product of reliable methodology. Nor was any evidence proffered showing that Dr. Bowles' opinion was formed and controlled by known standards or had a known error rate. Instead, Dr. Bowles simply affirmed that his opinions were supported by a reasonable degree of medical and biomechanical certainty. In short, Tradewinds offered insufficient foundation for this court to take judicial notice of the scientific basis of Dr. Bowles' conclusions. [27]