[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
expert witness, legal action
- To: dioxin-l@essential.org, cmcr@wildrockies.org, hsieck@montana.com, meic@desktop.org, tuholske@selway.umt.edu, billysun@wildrockies.org, westernlaw@igc.apc.org, scmcclintock@ipass.net, ttweed@wildrockies.org, hsieck@montana.com, bryony@wildrockies.org, montpirg@selway.umt.edu, lbroberg@selway.umt.edu, txtrky@selway.umt.edu, billysun@wildrockies.org, meic@desktop.org, Citizens@netrix.net, seek251@aol.com, tlange@nprc.desktop.org, chlorina@marsweb.com, elynch@wildrockies.org, CMCR@wildrockies.org, wds@midrivers.com, wve@wildrockies.org
- Subject: expert witness, legal action
- From: ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:50:52 -0600
sorry for cross postings. according to a seminar on c-span, there are two
cases due for u.s. supreme court decisions this term affecting the
supreme's progressive '94 daubert decision (9-0 if i recall) on allowing
expert testimony. i have heard elsewhere that lower courts are still quite
variable on what they'll allow, even after daubert.
the simpler & direct challenge to daubert--which expanded what
testimony/what person can be admitted as expert (ie not just 'published &
peer reviewed' standard, rather a judge should use some sort of a
reasonableness standard)--seems to be a G.E. case in which GE is being sued
by an ex-smoking emplyee w/ lung cancer alleging his expposure to GE's PCBs
was the cause [note, smoking causes certain types of lung cancer, perhaps
PCBs cause another type, or perhaps there are other biologic markers to
differentiate]. plaintiff originally won on allowing medical expert
testimony, appeal reversed it. sorry i didn't learn more about the
arguments being made by either side.
GM is was the original defendant in the other case, alleging they
negligently located the fuel pump in an '85 model at the rear of the
engine, causing it to continue feeding fuel when there was a fire (bronco?
by '86 model year they had moved it to a wheel well) . a GM engineer
intimately involved in fuel pump design & location had agreed to a
judge's/GM's order in an earlier case not to testify about this, but in a
different judicial jurisdiction (MO, not MI, or vice-versa). GM is saying
that since '08, public policy goals cannot overide the full faith & credit
of a court order, no matter the jurisdiction. but apparantly "a lot" of
the supremes in oral argument were quite agitated over the idea of allowing
one court to dictate another court's orders. obviously, this aspect is
much bigger than the expert witness aspect. i'll try to send to all the
abstracts of these 2 decisions when i get them from cornell law school's
service. any clarifications of this posting to all, please.
Tony Tweedale (Causality is a concept not subject to empirical
demonstration. -David Hume)