Legal Document

526 U.S. 137119 S.Ct. 1167143 L.Ed.2d 238 KUMHO TIRE CO. v. CARMICHAEL(97-1709)131 F.3d 1433, reversed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 1709 COMPANY, LTD., et al., PETITIONERS PATRICK CARMICHAEL, etc., al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [March 23, 1999] Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In Daubert Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 579 (1993), this Court focused upon admissibility scientific expert testimony. It pointed out that such testimony is admissible only if it both relevant and reliable. And held Federal Rules Evidence "assign to trial judge task ensuring an expert's rests on a reliable foundation at hand." Id., 597. The also discussed certain more specific factors, as testing, peer review, error rates, "acceptability" in community, some or all which might prove helpful determining reliability particular "theory technique." 593 594. 2 This case requires us decide how applies engineers other experts who are not scientists. We conclude Daubert's general holding setting forth judge's "gatekeeping" obligation based "scientific" knowledge, but "technical" "other specialized" knowledge. See Fed. Rule Evid. 702. court may consider one factors mentioned when doing so will help determine testimony's reliability. But, stated Daubert, test "flexible," list neither necessarily nor exclusively every case. Rather, law grants district same broad latitude decides enjoys respect its ultimate determination. General Electric Co. Joiner, 522 136, 143 (1997) (courts appeals apply "abuse discretion" standard reviewing court's determination). Applying these standards, we District Court's decision admit was within discretion therefore lawful. 3 * On July 6, 1993, right rear tire minivan driven by Patrick Carmichael blew out. accident followed, passengers died, others were severely injured. October Carmichaels brought diversity suit against tire's maker distributor, whom refer collectively Kumho Tire, claiming defective. plaintiffs rested their significant part deposition provided failure analysis, Dennis Carlson, Jr., intended testify support conclusion. 4 Carlson's depositions relied features technology dispute. A steel-belted radial like Carmichaels' made up "carcass" containing many layers flexible cords, called "plies," along (between cords outer tread) laid steel strips "belts." Steel wire loops, "beads," hold together plies' bottom edges. An layer, "tread," encases carcass, entire bound rubber, through application heat various chemicals. generally, e.g., J. Dixon, Tires, Suspension Handling 68 72 (2d ed. 1996). bead sits "bead seat," wheel assembly. That assembly contains "rim flange," extends over side tire. M. Mavrigian, Performance Wheels & Tires 81, 83 (1998) (illustrations). 5 A. Markovich, How To Buy Care For (1994). 6 accepted background facts about question. He assumed before blowout had traveled far. (The 1988 been installed time bought used March 1993; van approximately 7,000 additional miles two months they owned it.) Carlson noted tread depth, 11/32 inch new, App. 242, worn down depths ranged from 3/32 parts tire, nothing others. 287. conceded least punctures inadequately repaired. 258 261, 322. 7 Despite age history, concluded defect manufacture design caused blow-out. conclusion three premises which, for present purposes, must assume dispute: First, carcass should stay inner period after depth has away. 208 209. Second, issue separated prior accident. 336. Third, "separation" blowout. Ibid. 8 separation, however, propositions, several defendants strongly said separation kind misuse "overdeflection" (which consists underinflating causing carry too much weight, thereby generating can undo chemical tread/carcass bond), then, ordinarily, cause defect. 193 195, 277 278. he subject sufficient overdeflection reveal physical symptoms. These symptoms include (a) wear shoulder greater than center, id., 211; (b) signs groove," where beads have pushed hard seat inside rim, 196 197; (c) sidewalls with deterioration, discoloration, 212; and/or (d) marks rim flange, 219 220. does find four just (and presumably there no reason suspect less common separation), concludes manufacturing separation. 223 224. 9 added inspected limited degree showed few filled puncture holes lead separation). 256 257, 277, 303 304, 308. each instance, testified significant, explained why believed did overdeflection. example, extra wear, said, appeared primarily shoulder, whereas overdeflected would equally abnormal shoulders. 277. bear symptoms, any obvious separation; since blowout, done so. 10 Tire moved exclude ground his methodology failed 702's requirement. agreed act Daubert-type "gatekeeper," even though "technical," rather "scientific." Samyang 923 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 1522 (SD Ala. then examined light reliability-related mentioned, theory's testability, whether "has review publication," "known potential rate error," "degree acceptance community." Supp., 1520 (citing U.S., 592 594). found those argued methods, granted motion (as well defendants' accompanying summary judgment). 11 plaintiffs, arguing "inflexible," asked reconsideration. motion. Civ. Action 93 0860 CB S Ala., June 5, 1996), Pet. Cert. 1c. After reconsidering matter, be applied flexibly, simply illustrative, could argue favor admissibility. widespread "visual-inspection method" purposes. But insufficient indications "the component analysis most concerned Court, namely, employed analyzing data obtained visual inspection, basis, any, analysis." 6c. 12 consequently affirmed earlier order declaring inadmissable granting judgment. 13 Eleventh Circuit 131 1433 (1997). "review[ed] de novo" "district legal Daubert." 1435. Supreme explicitly cover 'scientific context,' " adding "a analysis" relies "on principles," skill- experience-based observation." 1435 1436. testimony, viewed relying experience, "falls outside scope Daubert," erred matter applying case," remanded further (non-Daubert-type) consideration under 14 petitioned certiorari, asking "may" "factors" "admissibility engineering testimony." i. certiorari uncertainty among lower courts whether, how, characterized 702; compare, Watkins Telsmith, 121 984, 990 991 (CA5 1997), with, Compton Subaru America, 82 1513, 1518 1519 (CA10), cert. denied, 519 1042 (1996). II 15 702 imposes special "ensure relevant, reliable." 589. initial question basic gatekeeping We, parties, believe Brief Petitioners 19; Respondents 17. thing, itself says: 16 "If scientific, technical, specialized knowledge assist trier fact understand evidence issue, witness qualified skill, training, education, thereto form otherwise." 17 language makes distinction between clear become specified Rule's word "knowledge," words (like "scientific") modify word, "establishes evidentiary reliability." 589 590. Hence, language, "scientific," matters scope. concede referred "because [wa]s nature expertise" issue. 590, n. 8. 18 Neither rationale underlay determination 703 grant witnesses testimonial unavailable "assumption basis experience discipline." (pointing opinions, including firsthand observation). experts, ones. 19 Finally, difficult, impossible, judges administer rules depended There line divides Disciplines rest Pure theory depend development observation properly engineered machinery. conceptual efforts distinguish unlikely produce lines capable cases. Cf. National Academy Engineering Amicus Curiae (scientist seeks while engineer nature's modification); Rubber Manufacturers Association (engineering, "applied science," "scientific reasoning methodology"); John Allen Amici (engineering methods"). 20 convincing need make distinctions. Experts kinds tie observations conclusions use what Judge Learned Hand "general truths derived experience." Hand, Historical Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, Harv. L. Rev. 40, 54 (1901). focuses observations, translation into theory, itself, case, often "upon confessedly foreign [the jury's] own." effort assure jury evaluate reflects 21 principles described Rule, matters, "requires valid connection pertinent inquiry precondition admissibility." 592. factual data, principles, sufficiently question, see Part III, infra, relevant] B 22 petitioners ask specifically testimony" "bear on" gate-keeping include: 23 Whether technique been) tested"; 24 subjected publication"; 25 Whether, technique, high error" "standards controlling technique's operation"; 26 acceptance" "relevant 27 Emphasizing answer yes. 28 foundations, See, Stephen Bobo (stressing bases disciplines). cases, concerns focus personal experience. As Solicitor points out, different expertise. United States 19, cases involving drug terms, handwriting criminal modus operandi, land valuation, agricultural practices, railroad procedures, attorney's fee others). Our emphasis thus description one." mentions do constitute "definitive checklist test." 593. adds 'tied facts' "case." 591 (quoting Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1242 (CA3 1985)). agree "[t]he identified assessing reliability, depending expertise, 19. conclusion, our view, rule in, applicability now subsets categorized category evidence. Too depends circumstances 29 contrary. meant helpful, definitive. Indeed, instance challenged. surprising claim never previously interested scientist. Nor, hand, presence factor show discipline lacks as, theories grounded so-called generally astrology necromancy. 30 At time, contrary Appeals' questions appropriate ask, produced erroneous results, method community. Likewise, times useful whose expertise purely say, perfume tester able 140 odors sniff, preparation field recognize acceptable. 31 disagree Circuit's sort "relies F.3d, creates schematism segregates type mapping experts. Life generates complex warrant definitive match. 32 say deny importance objective requirement ensure relevancy expert, basing professional studies employs courtroom level intellectual rigor characterizes practice field. Nor that, challenged considerable leeway deciding go reasonable measures C 33 briefing proceedings needed investigate Joiner abuse-of-discretion "review[s] 138 139. decisions Otherwise, lack discretionary authority avoid unnecessary "reliability" ordinary methods taken granted, require usual questioning arises. seek "unjustifiable expense delay" search "truth" "jus[t] determin[ation]" proceedings. 102. Thus, are, not, determine. supra, 143. insofar III 34 explain way considerations briefed exhaustively parties amici. doubt qualifications, included masters mechanical engineering, years' work Michelin consultant tort excluded because, despite initially doubted, unreliable, examining transcript "some detail," 519, 4, considering respondents' defense methodology, determined fell range reasonably differ, conflicting views "shaky." 596. doubts triggered here reasonable, suggestion, reasonableness tactile inspection separate carcass. using approach, obtained, draw regarding directly relevant. likelihood conceded, far enough bald; service; repaired (inadequately) punctures; bore very indicated, defect, abuse 5; 293 294. reliably absence abuse, normally establish existence (or absence) abuse. precisely (proportionately shoulder; grooves beads; discolored sidewalls; flange) implicit proposition, him abused looked punctures). 35 another transcripts final Those cast explicit (about abuse) proposition significance case). Among things, 10, 20, 30, 50 thousand miles, 6,000 "about far" "say certainty." 265. wondered precise ascertain certainty abuse-related minute shoulder/center relative differences, insufficiently tell "with certainty" 10,000 50,000 miles. augmented repeated reliance "subjective[ness]" mode response seeking information differentiate actually merely been. 222, 224 225, 285 286. They first morning deposition, hours. (His photographs.) 180. 36 Moreover, issued signed report "not overloaded underinflated," because "two four" flange impressions . normal." 335 "tread remaining inch," 336, opposing (apparently undisputed) measurements indicate positions around .5/32 4/32 inch, apparently showing shoulders 432 433. 37 Further, sign grooving, seemed sufficiency own simple visual-inspection methodology. tires groove pattern, ideally "look lot [similar] tires" know grooving's significance, similar 212 213, 214, 217. 38 court, looking circumstances, defense. (1) "none" indicated reliable, 1521; (2) "revealed countervailing operating outweigh 4c; (3) "parties briefs," ibid. reasons together, unreliable. 39 us, visual/tactile method, point long working indication denies set extensive anyone Affidavit H. R. Baumgardner 2, cited Forensic Engineers (Tire rely examination process elimination analyze experimental tires). before, 14, specific, general. jurors "in issues case." McLaughlin, Weinstein's ¶702.05[1], p. 1998); Advisory Committee's Note Proposed 702, Preliminary Draft Amendments Civil Procedure Evidence: Request Comment 126 "scrutinize" "principles methods" "have case"). 40 two-factor related small observational differences. record industry fine distinctions about, symmetry comparatively necessary, conclusions. prevalence articles papers validate approach. Compare Bobo, Flaws Separations, Mechanics Pneumatic 636 637 (S. Clark 1981); C. Schnuth Compression Grooving Rim Flange Abrasion Indicators Over-Deflected Operating Conditions presented Division American Chemical Society, Oct. 24, 1997; Walter Kiminecz, Bead Contact Pressure Measurements Tire-Rim Interface, Society Automotive Engineers, Feb. 28, 1975. himself, still Michelin, employer similarly defective grounds identical here. Of course, himself claimed accurate, but, "nothing either connected existing ipse dixit expert." 146. 41 additionally rigidly criteria. read satisfy criteria automatically renders inadmissible. vulnerable argument. There, rejecting "exempted Daubert-style scrutiny" "technical evidence," "none outlined satisfied." 1522. Subsequently, recognized "should 'flexible,' 'overarching [should be] validity' reliability," "Daubert exhaustive 4c 594 595). ultimately developed lawful discretion. 42 sum, authority, reviewable judgment Appeals Reversed. Scalia, J., concurring 43 44 45 46 O'Connor Thomas join, concurring. 47 I join endorses trial-court choosing manner testing abandon function. think worth perform function inadequately. choose means excluding fausse science junky. Though, today, holy writ, them unreasonable, hence Stevens, dissenting 48 49 51 part. 52 "[m]ay Merrill fully correctly answered Parts opinion, join. 53 answers quite Carlson. Because proper study performed efficiently nine Members remand task. exceptions rules, firmly fair litigants good reach raised petition. 150 151 (Stevens, part). Accordingly, feel well-reasoned Part, respectfully dissent disposition

Classification Label: 8