Opinion ID: 2971639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Testimony of Rick Franklin

Text: The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Rick Franklin’s expert testimony on the cause of the fire. Mr. Franklin’s opinion meets the standard for admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The inability to eliminate other causes of the fire or state with certainty the source of the accelerant go the reliability of his conclusions, not to the admissibility of his opinion. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by a two step inquiry. The district court must determine (1) that the expert testimony is scientifically valid, -9- No. 03-6208 Hartley v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al. based on scientific technical or other specialized knowledge, and, if so, (2) that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. FED. R. EVID. 702; Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993); Jahn v. Equine Servs., PSC, 233 F.3d 382, 388 (6th Cir. 2000). Testimony may be admitted when “an expert, whether basing testimony on professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice in the relevant field.” Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). An opinion on causation need not eliminate all other possible causes of the injury and the fact that other causes are not eliminated or a precise cause is not stated go to the accuracy of the conclusion, not the soundness of the methodology. Jahn, 233 F.3d at 390. Mr. Franklin’s expert testimony meets this standard and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting his testimony.