View
120
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
The State Rules of Admissibility
A Survey of How Expert Testimony Is Admitted In All 50 States
With Emphasis on Accident Reconstruction and Biomechanics
2
Table of Contents
Alabama 3 Massachusetts 23 South Dakota 45
Alaska 4 Michigan 24 Tennessee 46
Arkansas 5 Minnesota 25 Texas 47
Arizona 6 Mississippi 26 Utah 48
California 7 Missouri 27 Vermont 49
Colorado 8 Montana 28 Virginia 50
Connecticut 9 Nebraska 29 Washington 51
Delaware 10 Nevada 30 West Virginia 52
Florida 11 New Hampshire 32 Wisconsin 53
Georgia 12 New Jersey 33 Wyoming 54
Hawaii 13 New Mexico 34
Idaho 14 New York 35
Illinois 15 North Carolina 36
Indiana 16 North Dakota 37
Iowa 17 Ohio 38
Kansas 18 Oklahoma 39
Kentucky 19 Oregon 40
Louisiana 20 Pennsylvania 42
Maine 21 Rhode Island 43
Maryland 22 South Carolina 44
Table of Contents
3
Alabama
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye/Rules of Evidence*1
License Required Yes**2
Accident Reconstruction Yes3
Biomechanics Yes4
*The Alabama courts have not abandoned the Frye test of admissibility; however, they
also consider the Rules of Evidence which requires the witnesses to be qualified and helpful to
the trier of fact.
**An engineering expert witness only needs a license when testifying about work that
can only be legally done by a professional engineer. The witness does not have to be licensed in
Alabama, but in some jurisdiction of the U.S.
1 Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So. 2d 198 (2000)
2 Arthur v. Bolen, 41 So. 3d 745, (2010)
3 Gooden v. City of Talladega, 966 So. 2d 232, (2007)
4 CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller, 46 So. 3d 434 (2010)
Table of Contents
4
Alaska
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert5
License Required No6
Accident Reconstruction Yes7
Biomechanics Yes8
Tests conducted in preparation for a trial should be peer-reviewed to ensure they pass a
Daubert challenge. No side in a trial may have more than three expert witnesses unless given
special permission by the court. An expert witness retained or employed to give testimony in a
case must file a pre-trial report at the direction of the court with a complete statement of all
opinions to be given, information or data used to form the opinions, any exhibits to be offered in
support of their opinions, the witness’s qualifications, a list of all publications by the witness in
the previous ten years, the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony, and a list of
other trials and depositions given in the previous four years.
5 State v. Coon, 974 P. 2d 386 (1999)
6 Little Susitna Construction Co. v. Soil Processing, 944 P. 2d 20
7 Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992 (2005)
8 Cable v. Shefchik, 985 P. 2d 474 (1999)
Table of Contents
5
Arizona
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye*9
License Required No10
Accident Reconstruction Yes11
Biomechanics Yes12
*The Frye test does not apply to experts who reach their conclusions through “inductive
reasoning based on his or her own experience, observation, or research.” Only when using novel
scientific principles or procedures developed by others is it necessary for an expert to pass a Frye
hearing.
9 Logerquist v. Mcvey, 196 Ariz. 470 (2000)
10 Bliss v. Treece, 134 Ariz. 516 (1983)
11 Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (2006)
12 Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (2006)
Table of Contents
6
Arkansas
Daubert, Frye, or other. Daubert13
License Required No14
Accident Reconstruction Yes*15
Biomechanics **
*Expert accident reconstruction testimony is only allowed in situations where there are
no eye witnesses, the eye witness testimony is contradictory, the eye witness would not be able
to understand what caused the accident, or the jury would not be able to draw their own
conclusions.
**There is no case law on biomechanics testimony to date, but occupant kinematics
evidence has been allowed.16
13
Green v. Alpharma, Inc., 373 Ark. 378 (2008) 14
Parker Construction Co. v. Aldridge, 312 Ark. 69 (1993) 15
Drope v. Owens, 298 Ark. 69 (1989) and Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Daggett, 354 Ark. 112 (2003) 16
Carr v. GMC, 322 Ark. 664 (1995)
Table of Contents
7
California
Daubert, Frye, or other Other: Kelly-Frye*17
License Required No**18
Accident Reconstruction Yes19
Biomechanics Yes20
*The Kelly-Frye test is basically the Frye test with two additional requirements: (1) the
witness must be qualified in the field they offer testimony in, and (2) the methods used to gather
data must also meet the general acceptance rule. The Kelly-Frye test only applies to new science.
**To be declared an expert, a witness does not need any particular license, but must
demonstrate specialized knowledge in their field.
17
People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24 (1976) 18
People v. King, 266 Cal. App. 2d 437 (1968) 19
Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th
1298 (2011) 20
Soule v. GMC, 8 Cal. 4th
548 (1994)
Table of Contents
8
Colorado
Daubert, Frye, or other Other: Rules of Evidence*21
License Required No22
Accident Reconstruction Yes23
Biomechanics Yes24
*Colorado Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony in
Colorado. It requires the testimony to be based on reliable scientific principles, the witness to be
qualified in their field, and that the testimony will be helpful to the jury in understanding the
facts. Reliability is judged by a flexible list of factors: (1) if the techniques used to gather data
can be tested, (2) if the techniques have been subjected to peer review, (3) the rate of error, (4) if
the technique has been generally accepted, (5) the relationship between the expert’s technique
and other more established methods, (6) the existence of supporting literature, (7) uses for the
technique outside of litigation, (8) types of error generated by the technique, and (9) if the
techniques have been accepted in other similar cases. The expert’s qualifications and helpfulness
are more straightforward criteria and will be judged by the court.
Colorado also requires experts that have been retained to offer testimony to submit pre-
trial summaries of their opinions, methods, exhibits, qualifications, and all previous trials they’ve
offered testimony for in the previous four years.
21
People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (2001) 22
Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision, Inc., 969 P.2d 681 (1998) 23
Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574 (2003) 24
Schultz v. Wells, 13 P.3d 846 (2000)
Table of Contents
9
Connecticut
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert*25
License Required No26
Accident Reconstruction Yes27
Biomechanics Yes28
*Connecticut added three requirements to the original Daubert four: (1) if the testimony
is objective, (2) if the witness can explain their testimony in a way that helps the jury, and (3) if
the expert’s methodology was developed solely for litigation or has other uses. These additional
factors are awarded less weight than the Daubert factors but can be important when the reliability
of the evidence is otherwise difficult to determine. The validity of the methodology is more
important than an expert’s qualifications.
25
Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (2010) 26
Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 116 Conn. App. 483 (2009) 27
Hicks v. State, 287 Conn. 421 (2008) 28
DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583 (2010)
Table of Contents
10
Delaware
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert29
License Required Yes*30
Accident Reconstruction Yes31
Biomechanics Yes**32
*Delaware requires that engineers be licensed in a state, not necessarily Delaware, to
offer expert testimony.
**Delaware has very strict guidelines on how they judge biomechanics testimony. The
courts recognize biomechanical testimony that demonstrates what forces may have acted on a
body and what effects those forces may have had. If attempting to prove injury causation, the
testimony must provide definitive evidence that specific physical forces caused the precise injury
to the particular person. This testimony can contradict medical testimony when the physics of the
event clearly differ from what the medical testimony claims happened. One example of these
strict guidelines was a car accident case where the Delaware Supreme Court threw out
biomechanical testimony despite the unquestioned qualification of the expert and his methods,
because the victim of the accident had undergone back surgery for pain prior to the crash. The
courts decided that because the biomechanics expert had not reviewed the victim’s prior medical
history and did not take this “abnormal” body condition into account, his testimony was invalid.
29
M.G. Bancorporation v. LeBeau, 737 A.2d 513 (1999) 30
24 Del. C. §2802A 31
Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso, 759 A.2d 582 (2000) 32
Eskin v. Carden, 842 A.2d 1222 (2004)
Table of Contents
11
Florida
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye33
License Required No*34
Accident Reconstruction Yes35
Biomechanics Yes**36
*The Florida law says that a witness may be qualified as an expert if they have a
professional degree from a college or university and has had special professional training and
experience, or if the individual is possessed of special knowledge or skill about a subject. For
engineering testimony, the witness is expected to be licensed unless extremely qualified.
**Biomechanics experts are allowed to testify about the forces in an accident and how a
body may react, but they are strictly prohibited from testifying about the extent of an injury that
an individual may have suffered in an accident. A witness must have a medical degree to testify
to specific injury causation.37
33
Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543 (2007) 34
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.390 35
Goldberg v. Florida Power and Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (2005) 36
Griffen v. Kia Motors Corp., 843 So. 2d 336 (2003) 37
Mattek v. White, 695 So. 2d 942 (1997)
Table of Contents
12
Georgia
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert38
License Required No39
Accident Reconstruction Yes40
Biomechanics Yes*41
*Biomechanics expert prevented from testifying because he had not investigated either
the vehicle or the victim.
Go Dawgs!
38
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (2008) 39
Agri-Cycle LLC v. Couch, 284 Ga. 90 (2008) 40
State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. Matty, 286 Ga. 611 (2010) 41
Brown v. Hove, 268 Ga. App. 732 (2004)
Table of Contents
13
Hawaii
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*42
License Required No43
Accident Reconstruction Yes44
Biomechanics Yes45
*Hawaii’s rules of evidence dictate that an expert witness’s testimony must meet five
criteria to be permissible in court: (1) the testimony must be helpful to the jury, (2) it must aid
the jury’s understanding of the facts, (3) the underlying theory must be valid, (4) the correct
procedures must be used to gather the data, and (5) any procedures used to gather data must be
performed properly.
42
State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507 (1996) 43
Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co., 85 Haw. 336 (1997) 44
Wemple v. Dahman, 103 Haw. 385 (2004) 45
Udac v. Takata Corp., 121 Haw. 143 (2009)
Table of Contents
14
Idaho
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*46
License Required No47
Accident Reconstruction Yes48
Biomechanics Yes49
*Idaho uses their Rules of Evidence as the test of admissibility. The main requirement is
that the evidence be helpful to the jury. The courts will also inquire about the principles and
methodology behind the expert’s opinion and whether they are testable and peer reviewed.
46
Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Services, 143 Idaho 834 (2007) 47
Jones v. Jones, 117 Idaho 621 (1990) 48
Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756 (2009) 49
Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756 (2009)
Table of Contents
15
Illinois
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye*50
License Required No51
Accident Reconstruction Yes52
Biomechanics Yes53
*In Illinois, the Frye standard is mainly applied to the methodology and principles behind
the testimony, instead of the expert’s conclusions.
50
People v. Mckown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (2010) 51
Somers v. Quinn, 373 Ill. App. 3d 87 52
Zavala v. Powermatic, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 542 (1995) 53
Fronabarger v. Burns, 385 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2008)
Table of Contents
16
Indiana
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*54
License Required No55
Accident Reconstruction Yes56
Biomechanics Yes**57
*Part (b) of Indiana’s Rule 702 states that “Expert scientific testimony is admissible only
if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are
reliable.” The Indiana courts regard the Daubert factors as “helpful, but not controlling,” on
judging the reliability of expert witness testimony.
**Biomechanics testimony is not allowed to testify about causation, only the physical
forces involved and reaction of a body.
54
Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (1995) 55
Hammond v. Indiana H. B. R. Co., 175 Ind. App. 644 (1978) 56
Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (2005) 57
Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (2005)
Table of Contents
17
Iowa
Daubert, Frye, or other Other*58
License Required No59
Accident Reconstruction Yes60
Biomechanics Yes61
*Iowa has an ad hoc approach to admitting expert testimony.62
They usually look for
testimony to be reliable and understandable. For especially novel or complex science, they do
identify the Daubert factors as general guidelines. Typically, a Daubert challenge is only proper
for expert scientific testimony. Technical and other non-scientific evidence does not have to pass
the Daubert criteria.
58
Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (2010) 59
Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (2010) 60
Nichols v. Schweitzer, 472 N.W.2d 266 (1991) 61
Oelwein Community School District v. Williams, 2003 Iowa App. Lexis 531 (2003) 62
State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80 (1980)
Table of Contents
18
Kansas
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye63
License Required No64
Accident Reconstruction Yes65
Biomechanics *
*There is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics evidence in Kansas.
63
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443 (2000) 64
Cline v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 182 Kan. 155 (1957) 65
McElhaney v. Rouse, 197 Kan. 136 (1966)
Table of Contents
19
Kentucky
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert66
License Required No67
Accident Reconstruction Yes68
Biomechanics Yes69
Experts must disclose how much they are being compensated for their testimony.
66
Toyota Motor Corp. v. Gregory, 136 S.W.3d 35 (2004) 67
Kentucky Revised Statutes § 322.010 68
Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (2000) 69
CSX Transportation, Inc., v. Begley, 313 S.W.3d 52 (2010)
Table of Contents
20
Louisiana
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert70
License Required No71
Accident Reconstruction Yes72
Biomechanics Yes73
70
State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (1993) 71
State v. Pelt, 448 So. 2d 1294 (1984) 72
State v. Pelt, 448 So. 2d 1294 (1984) 73
Taylor v. Progressive Security Insurance Co., 33 So. 3d 1081 (2010)
Table of Contents
21
Maine
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*74
License Required No75
Accident Reconstruction Yes76
Biomechanics Yes**77
*The rules of evidence require judges to consider if (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the
testimony is relevant, and (3) the testimony will assist the trier of fact. Indicators of reliability
include whether the testimony (1) has been peer-reviewed, (2) if other similar studies have been
done, (3) if other experts support the methods used in the testimony, (4) the expert’s
qualifications, and (5) if there is a scientific basis for causation.
**There is no specific case law about biomechanics, but occupant kinematics has been
approved by the Maine courts.
74
Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pa., Inc., 2005 ME 94 (2005) 75
State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (2011) 76
State v. Irving, 2003 ME 31 (2003) 77
State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (2011)
Table of Contents
22
Maryland
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye*78
License Required No79
Accident Reconstruction Yes80
Biomechanics Yes81
*The Frye examination in Maryland also covers the methods and theories behind the
expert’s testimony. Testimony can also be excluded on lack of relevancy or qualification.
78
Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md, 575 (2009) 79
Vroom v. Arundel Gas Co., 262 Md. 657 (1971) 80
Charles County Commissioners v. Johnson, 393 Md. 248 (2006) 81
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nave, 129 Md. App. 90 (1999)
Table of Contents
23
Massachusetts
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert*82
License Required No**83
Accident Reconstruction Yes84
Biomechanics Yes85
*Massachusetts still acknowledges general acceptance as the most critical factor for
judging expert testimony. Only when an expert’s testimony involves science that lacks general
acceptance is a Daubert hearing necessary. There are five foundational requirements for expert
testimony: helpfulness, qualifications, reliability of facts and data, reliability of process and
theory, and that the process/theory is applied to the facts/data reliably.
**The law does not include testimony as part of the practice of engineering that requires
a license, but there are no cases where an unlicensed engineer was allowed to give testimony.
82
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) 83
Leibovich v. Antonellis, 410 Mass. 568 (1991) 84
Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 653 (2009) 85
Commonwealth v. Power, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (2010)
Table of Contents
24
Michigan
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert/Frye*86
License Required No87
Accident Reconstruction Yes88
Biomechanics Yes**89
*Michigan incorporates both the Frye and Daubert admissibility standards into their rule
of evidence. Testimony must pass a Daubert challenge, and if it is novel evidence, the testimony
must be proven to be based on science that has achieved general acceptance in its field.
**Biomechanics experts are not allowed to testify about the precise cause of a specific
injury, or, in the case of product liability, the safety of a proposed improvement of a product.
86
Clerc v. Chippewa County War Memorial Hospital, 477 Mich. 1067 (2007) 87
People v. Hawthorne, 293 Mich. 15 (1940) 88
People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (2010) 89
Hershey v. Black and Decker, 2008 Mich. App. Lexis 1919
Table of Contents
25
Minnesota
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye+*90
License Required No**
Accident Reconstruction Yes91
Biomechanics Yes92
*Along with general acceptance, Minnesota requires that evidence found through the
expert’s use of scientific technique must be grounded in reliable science. Essentially, the
techniques that experts use to investigate an issue at trial must be scientifically valid.
**Minnesota law does not include expert testimony as part of the practice of engineering
requiring a license, but the case law seems to indicate almost all expert engineering testimony
was given by registered engineers.93
90
State v. Traylor, 656 N.W.2d 885 (2003) 91
W.G.O. ex rel A.W.O. v. Crandall, 640 N.W.2d 344 (2002) 92
Malith v. Soller, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. Lexis 552 (2010) 93
Minn. Statute § 326.02
Table of Contents
26
Mississippi
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert94
License Required Yes*95
Accident Reconstruction Yes96
Biomechanics Yes97
*Experts wishing to provide engineering testimony in Mississippi must obtain a limited
license in Mississippi. To qualify for a limited license, the expert needs to be licensed as an
engineer in another jurisdiction.
94
Miss. Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (2003) 95
Miss. Code Annotated § 73-13-3 96
Denham v. Holmes, 60 So. 3d 773 (2011) 97
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite, 53 So. 3d 749 (2011)
Table of Contents
27
Missouri
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*98
License Required No99
Accident Reconstruction Yes100
Biomechanics Yes101
*The Missouri statutes require that the court determine (1) if an expert is qualified, (2) if
the testimony will help the trier of fact, (3) if the testimony is based on data and methods found
reliable by other experts in the field, and (4) if the court finds the testimony otherwise reliable.
98
State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (2003) 99
Yantzi v. Norton, 927 S.W.2d 427 (1996) 100
Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (2010) 101
Eltiste v. Ford Motor Co., 167 S.W.3d 742 (2005)
Table of Contents
28
Montana
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert*102
License Required No103
Accident Reconstruction Yes104
Biomechanics Yes105
*Only novel scientific evidence is subject to a Daubert challenge, but all scientific
evidence must be deemed admissible as stated in Montana Rules of Evidence, Rule 702.
Montana’s Rule 702 is equivalent to the Federal Rule 702 which requires that the witness be
qualified, the evidence be reliable, and the testimony be relevant to the case.
102
Hulse v. DOJ, Motor Vehicle Division, 1998 MT 108 (1998) 103
Hammer v. State, 2007 Mont. Dist. Lexis 131 (2007) affirmed by Montana Supreme Court 104
Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 2003 MT 47 (2003) 105
Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 244 Mont. 61 (1990) Overruled on other grounds.
Table of Contents
29
Nebraska
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert106
License Required No107
Accident Reconstruction Yes108
Biomechanics Yes109
106
Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215 (2001) 107
Northern Natural Gas Company v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 202 Neb. 300 (1979) 108
Ford v. Estate of Clinton, 265 Neb. 285 (2003) 109
Shipler v. GMC, 271 Neb. 194 (2006)
Table of Contents
30
Nevada
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*110
License Required No111
Accident Reconstruction Yes112
Biomechanics No**113
*The Nevada Rule 702 has three prongs to test admissibility: (1) that the witness is
qualified, (2) that their knowledge will assist the trier of fact, and (3) that they only testify to
matters within their field of expertise.
The most important factor is whether or not their testimony will assist the jury. To be
helpful, expert testimony must be based on reliable methodology. Courts determine reliability by
examining if the testimony is (1) within a recognized field of expertise, (2) testable and has been
tested, (3) published and subject to peer review, (4) generally accepted within the scientific
community, and (5) based on “particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, or
generalization…” If the testimony is based on an experiment the court is also required to
consider (1) if the experiment was controlled by known standards, (2) if the testing conditions
were similar to the conditions of the original incident, (3) if there was a known error rate, and (4)
if it was developed just for the litigation the expert was involved in.
**Biomechanics testimony was thrown out in a case as unreliable because the party
producing the witness failed to provide any evidence that biomechanics was within a recognized
110
Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648 (2010) 111
Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (2008) 112
Sheriff, Clark County v. Burcham, 198 P.3d 326 (2008) 113
Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (2008)
Table of Contents
31
field of expertise. Also, the witness failed to offer any scientific basis for his opinion as he did
not investigate the events of the accident or attempt to reconstruct them.
32
New Hampshire
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert*114
License Required No115
Accident Reconstruction Yes116
Biomechanics Yes117
*A Daubert hearing is only necessary in cases where the evidence is based on science
that is not “taken for granted”.
114
Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002) 115
Marcotte v. Peirce Construction Co., 111 N.H. 226 (1971) 116
Mclaughlin v. Fisher Engineering, 150 N.H. 195 (2003) 117
Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, 147 N.H. 150 (2001)
Table of Contents
33
New Jersey
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*118
License Required No119
Accident Reconstruction Yes120
Biomechanics Yes121
*New Jersey Rule 702 has three requirements: that the testimony is reliable, helpful to
the trier of fact, and that the witness is qualified. Reliability can be established through general
acceptance or use of the testimony in other judicial decisions.
118
Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 NJ 6 (2008) 119
Alliance for Disabled in Action, Inc., v. Continental, 371 NJ Super. 398 (2004) 120
Campione v. Soden, 150 NJ 163 (1997) 121
Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 NJ 6 (2008)
Table of Contents
34
New Mexico
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert122
License Required No123
Accident Reconstruction Yes124
Biomechanics Yes125
122
Lee v. Martinez, 96 P.3d 291 (2004) 123
Baerwald v. Flores, 122 NM 679 (1996) 124
Harrison v. ICX, 98 NM 247 (1982) 125
Baerwald v. Flores, 122 NM 679 (1996)
Table of Contents
35
New York
Daubert, Frye, or other Frye126
License Required No127
Accident Reconstruction Yes128
Biomechanics Yes129
126
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 2006 Slip Op 7391 (2006) 127
Caprara v. Chrysler Corporation, 52 NY 2d 114 (1981) 128
Soto v. NY City Transit Authority, 6 NY3d 487 (2006) 129
Mathis v. NY Health Club, Inc., 288 AD2d 56 (2001)
Table of Contents
36
North Carolina
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*130
License Required No131
Accident Reconstruction Yes132
Biomechanics Yes133
*The North Carolina Rule 702 requires expert testimony to be (1) reliable, (2) given by a
qualified witness, and (3) relevant to the issue at trial.
130
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 NC 440 (2004) 131
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 NC 440 (2004) 132
NC Gen Stat. 8C-1, Rule 702 133
Floyd v. McGill, 156 NC App. 29 (2003)
Table of Contents
37
North Dakota
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*134
License Required No135
Accident Reconstruction Yes136
Biomechanics **
*North Dakota only requires that expert testimony be helpful to the trier of fact and
presented by a qualified witness. There are no specific requirements for qualification, and North
Dakota encourages a very liberal admissibility policy.
**There is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics, but kinematics evidence has
been allowed by North Dakota courts.137
134
State v. Hernandez, 2005 ND 214 (2005) 135
Endresen v. Scheels Hardware and Sports Shop, 1997 ND 38 (1997) 136
Wolf v. Estate of Seright, 1997 ND 240 (1997) 137
Usry v. Theusch, 521 NW 2d 918 (1994)
Table of Contents
38
Ohio
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert138
License Required No139
Accident Reconstruction Yes140
Biomechanics Yes141
138
Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St. 3d 351 (2007) 139
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Tomchik, 134 Ohio App. 3d 765 (1999) 140
Lanham v. Wilson, 1991 Ohio App. Lexis 3820 (1991) 141
Lee v. Mendel, 1999 Ohio App. Lexis 3892 (1999)
Table of Contents
39
Oklahoma
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert142
License Required No143
Accident Reconstruction Yes144
Biomechanics Yes145
142
Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (2003) 143
Howlett v. Mayo’s Inc., 186 Okla. 651 (1940) 144
Snyder v. Dominguez, 2008 OK 53 (2008) 145
Nash v. GMC, 2007 OK Civ. App. 11 (2007)
Table of Contents
40
Oregon
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of evidence+Daubert+*146
License Required Yes**147
Accident Reconstruction Yes148
Biomechanics Yes149
*The Oregon Supreme Court identified 17 factors that courts can use to judge the
reliability of scientific evidence:
1. General acceptance
2. Expert’s qualifications
3. The use which has been made of the technique
4. Rate of error
5. The existence of supporting literature
6. The novelty of the technique
7. The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert
8. The existence of standards governing the expert’s methodology
9. Presence of safeguards in the expert’s methodology
10. Analogy to other scientific techniques whose results are admissible
11. Acceptance among other experts in the field
12. The nature and breadth of the inference adduced
13. The clarity and simplicity with which the technique can be described and explained
14. The extent to which the basic data are verifiable by the court and jury
15. The availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique
16. The probative significance of the evidence in the case
17. The care with which the technique was employed
146
Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, 331 Ore 285 (2000) 147
Oregon Revised Statutes §672.005 148
Dyer v. R.E. Christiansen Trucking, 318 Ore 391 (1994) 149
Hayes v. Huard, 108 Ore. App. 289 (1991)
Table of Contents
41
**To testify, an expert needs to obtain a temporary Oregon engineering license.
42
Pennsylvania
Daubert, Frye, other Frye150
License Required No151
Accident Reconstruction Yes152
Biomechanics Yes153
150
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546 (2003) 151
Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321 (1974) 152
McManamon v. Washko, 2006 Pa. Super 245 (2006) 153
Raskin v. Ford Motor Company, 2003 Pa. Super 441 (2003)
Table of Contents
43
Rhode Island
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert154
License Required No155
Accident Reconstruction Yes156
Biomechanics *
*There is no case law on biomechanics in Rhode Island.
154
DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Company, 729 A.2d 677 (1999) 155
Owens v. Payless Cashways, 670 A.2d 1240 (1996) 156
Frias v. Jurczyk, 633 A.2d 679 (1993)
Table of Contents
44
South Carolina
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*157
License Required No158
Accident Reconstruction Yes159
Biomechanics Yes160
*To be admissible in South Carolina, expert testimony must be (1) beyond the knowledge
of the average juror, (2) the expert must be qualified, and (3) the testimony must be reliable. To
judge reliability, the courts look at whether the methods used by the experts were (1) peer
reviewed, (2) used in applications outside of the present litigation, (3) monitored to ensure
quality results, and (4) consistent with recognized scientific laws and procedures.
157
Watson v. Ford Motor Company, 389 SC 434 (2010) 158
Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 370 SC 362 (2006) 159
Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 370 SC 362 (2006) 160
Wilson v. Rivers, 357 SC 447 (2004)
Table of Contents
45
South Dakota
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert161
License Required No162
Accident Reconstruction Yes163
Biomechanics Yes164
161
Supreme Pork, Inc., v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 SD 20 (2009) 162
Mulder v. Tague, 85 SD 544 (1971) 163
Vansteenwyk v. Baumgartner Trees & Landscaping, 2007 SD 36 (2007) 164
Maroney v. Aman, 1997 SD 73 (1997)
Table of Contents
46
Tennessee
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence/Daubert*165
License Required No166
Accident Reconstruction Yes167
Biomechanics Yes168
*Tennessee’s Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of expert testimony, but the
courts have acknowledged the Daubert factors as helpful guidelines to determine the reliability
of the testimony.
165
McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, 955 SW 2d 257 (1997) 166
Martin v. Sizemore, 78 SW 3d 249 (2001) 167
Flax v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 272 SW 3d 521 (2008) 168
Brown v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 181 SW 3d 268 (2005)
Table of Contents
47
Texas
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert169
License Required Yes170
Accident Testimony Yes171
Biomechanics Yes172
169
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 SW2d 549 (1995) 170
Texas Occupations Code 1001.003 171
TXI Transportation Company v. Hughes, 306 SW3d 230 (2010) 172
Shipley v. Holt Texas, Ltd., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3773 (2010)
Table of Contents
48
Utah
Daubert, Frye, or other Rules of Evidence*173
License Required No174
Accident Reconstruction Yes175
Biomechanics Yes176
*Utah does not require evidence to have gained general acceptance to be deemed
admissible, however, if evidence has attained general acceptance then it is almost always
admissible. Utah does require that expert testimony be based on science with “inherent
reliability” which means that the underlying scientific principles and methods must be reliable
and the derived evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact.
173
Phillips ex rel. Utah State Department of Social Services v. Jackson, 615 P.2d 1228 (1980) 174
Crafts v. Hansen, 667 P 2d 1068 (1983) 175
Ryan v. Gold Cross Services, 903 P 2d (1995) 176
SBD v. State (State ex rel. ZD), 2006 UT 54 (2006)
Table of Contents
49
Vermont
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert177
License Required No178
Accident Reconstruction Yes179
Biomechanics *
*To date, there is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics testimony in
Vermont.
177
USGen New England, Inc., v. Town of Rockingham, 2004 VT 90 (2004) 178
South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 VT 33 (1980) 179
Smith v. Gainer, 153 VT 442 (1990)
Table of Contents
50
Virginia
Daubert, Frye, or other Other*180
License Required No181
Accident Reconstruction Yes**182
Biomechanics Yes***183
*Virginia has its own state test called the Spencer Standard. The court must “make a
threshold finding of fact with respect to the reliability of the scientific method offered, unless it
is of a kind so familiar and accepted as to require no foundation to establish the fundamental
reliability of the system, such as fingerprint analysis.”
**Accident reconstruction testimony is rarely admissible in Virginia. The speed of the
vehicles in the accident specifically cannot be testified to in Virginia.
***Biomechanics engineers are not allowed to testify to injury causation. An expert must
have a medical doctor’s license to diagnose and discuss the cause of specific injury.
180
Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78 (1990) 181
Va. Code Annotated §54.1-400 182
Brown v. Corbin, 244 Va. 528 (1992) 183
Hollingsworth v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 279 Va. 360 (2010)
Table of Contents
51
Washington
Daubert, Frye, other Frye184
License Required No185
Accident Reconstruction Yes186
Biomechanics Yes187
184
Medcalf v. Department of Licensing, 133 Wn.2d 290 (1997) 185
Channel v. Mills, 77 Wn. App. 268 (1995) 186
Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn. 2d 237 (2002) 187
Ma’Ele v. Arrington, 111 Wn. App. 557 (2002)
Table of Contents
52
West Virginia
Daubert, Frye, other Daubert188
License Required No189
Accident Reconstruction Yes190
Biomechanics Yes191
188
Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39 (1993) 189
Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 512 (1995) 190
Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W. Va. 209 (2008) 191
Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W. Va. 209 (2008)
Table of Contents
53
Wisconsin
Daubert, Frye, other Rules of Evidence*192
License Required No193
Accident Reconstruction Yes194
Biomechanics Yes195
*Evidence in Wisconsin is admissible if (1) it is relevant, (2) the witness is qualified, and
(3) the evidence will assist the trier of fact. Reliability of the evidence is not a factor in
determining its admissibility; instead, reliability goes to weight.
192
Rico v. Riva, 2003 Wi. App. 182 (2003) 193
Wisconsin Statute §443.01 194
Franz v. Brennan, 150 Wis. 2d 1 (1989) 195
Gaertner v. Holcka, 219 Wis. 2d 436 (1998)
Table of Contents
54
Wyoming
Daubert, Frye, or other Daubert196
License Required No*197
Accident Reconstruction Yes198
Biomechanics Yes**199
*There is no license requirement, but in matters dealing with product failure or liability,
experts are required typically to be very familiar with the specific brand and model of product at
issue. Witnesses must also be qualified in every area in which they plan to give testimony.
**There is a case where biomechanical evidence is allowed, but there are no cases in
Wyoming in which a biomechanical expert has given testimony.
196
Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P. 2d 467 (1999) 197
Herman v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, 675 P. 2d 1271 (1984) 198
Werner Enterprises v. Brophy, 2009 WY 132 (2009) 199
Hurley v. PDQ Transport, Inc., 6 P 3d 134 (2000)
Table of Contents
Recommended