Opinion ID: 2107726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: prejudice to zimmerman

Text: Our conclusion that the trial court erred by failing to perform its gatekeeping duty does not, however, end our inquiry. Not every error justifies a new trial; only an error which is prejudicial to the rights of the unsuccessful party does so. Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys., 265 Neb. 918, 663 N.W.2d 43 (2003). In the absence of such an error, the successful party, having sustained the burden and expense of trial, may keep the benefit of the verdict. Id. Thus, the question is whether the court's failure to perform its gatekeeping duties resulted in prejudice to Zimmerman. Some courts have held that when the trial court fails to make the required findings, the appellate court should conduct the Daubert/ Schafersman I analysis on the appellate record. See, Kinser v. Gehl Co., 184 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 120 S.Ct. 1011, 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000); Tanner v. Westbrook, 174 F.3d 542 (5th Cir.1999), superseded on other grounds, Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). If the appellate court concludes that the evidence in the appellate record justifies the admission or exclusion of the evidence, then, according to these courts, no prejudice results to the complaining party. See Kinser, supra . But in our view, this improperly shifts the gatekeeping duty from trial courts to appellate courts. There is a reason that trial courts, rather than appellate courts, bear the gatekeeping duty. Trial courts ... have a much broader `array of tools which can be brought to bear on the evaluation of expert testimony'.... 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.02[6][c] at 702-29 (2d ed.2004). An appellate court is limited to a cold record and thus is not in a position to perform the gatekeeping role in a manner that is fair to the parties. Cf., Goebel v. Denver and Rio Grande Western R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir.2000); Cortes-Irizarry v. CorporaciOn Insular, 111 F.3d 184 (1st Cir.1997). Thus, when a trial court fails to make the requisite findings, the losing party will usually be prejudiced. Only if the admission or exclusion of the expert's testimony did not affect the result of the trial unfavorably for the party against whom the ruling was made will a court's abdication of its gatekeeping duty be deemed nonprejudicial. See, Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir.2003); Elsayed Mukhtar v. Cal. State University, Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.2002), amended 319 F.3d 1073 (2003). Here, Powell conceded that she failed to yield at the intersection, but argued that Zimmerman was contributorily negligent because she was driving above the speed limit as she approached the intersection. The jury agreed and concluded that Zimmerman bore 49 percent of the responsibility for the collision. Because Hamernik's testimony was the centerpiece of Powell's comparative negligence defense, we cannot say that the admission of his testimony did not affect the result of the trial.