Opinion ID: 60392
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Exclude the Broussards' Expert Witness James Slider

Text: State Farm appeals the admission of testimony by James Slider, a civil engineer who testified as an expert on behalf of the Broussards. This Court review[s] the district court's determination of admissibility of expert evidence under Daubert for abuse of discretion. Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir.2007). The Daubert factors for evaluating expert testimony include whether the theory or technique the expert employs is generally accepted; whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether the theory can and has been tested; whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation. Id. (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)). Slider, whose specialty is in structural engineering, opined that wind destroyed the Broussards' home prior to the arrival of the storm surge. He considered and ruled out other causes for the initial damage to the Broussards' home by evaluating data from the Stennis Space Center and eyewitness testimony. He also based his conclusions on physical evidence left on the Broussards' property. State Farm objected to his testimony in part because his work had not been peer reviewed and he did not know of others who had used his methods. The district court evaluated Slider's testimony in a written order and found that the data he relied on was sufficiently reliable to support his opinions. After reviewing the record, we affirm and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Slider's testimony.