The 2023 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 has introduced stricter standards for expert testimony, challenging litigators to adapt to the evolving requirements. Let's take a look at five recent cases to see how courts are putting these requirements into practice—insights that will prove particularly valuable for litigators planning their expert strategy.
The 2023 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 has introduced stricter standards for expert testimony, challenging litigators to adapt to the evolving requirements. While the amendment largely codifies what courts were already doing—requiring attorneys to prove their expert's testimony is admissible and based on reliable methods—its explicit requirements have prompted courts to take an even harder look at expert qualifications and methodology. The impact is already evident in recent decisions, where judges are taking a particularly close look at whether experts truly have the specific expertise they claim and can demonstrate reliable methods.
Let's take a look at five recent cases to see how courts are putting these requirements into practice—insights that will prove particularly valuable for litigators planning their expert strategy.
Case 1: Hill v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc.
In Hill, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee excluded the testimony of two experts in a product liability case involving a fractured hip implant.
The plaintiffs' metallurgy expert was excluded because she lacked the medical background to comment on causation and failed to rule out alternative causes of the implant's failure. The court emphasized that under Rule 702, qualifications must match the subject matter, and conclusions must be reliably derived using scientific principles.
The second expert was excluded because his opinions relied entirely on the metallurgy expert's inadmissible conclusions. Rule 702 prohibits experts from simply adopting the unsupported opinions of others.
This case highlights the importance of ensuring experts have specific qualifications and apply reliable methodologies that withstand heightened scrutiny.
Case 2: Hickcox v. Hyster-Yale Group, Inc.
In Hickcox, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas excluded testimony in a forklift injury case, emphasizing the need for specific expertise.
The plaintiff's proposed expert was a licensed mechanical engineer but lacked experience in forklift design and safety standards. The court found that general engineering expertise was insufficient to testify on specialized issues like forklift design.
Additionally, the expert's methodology was deemed unreliable because he failed to test his proposed alternative designs or prove their feasibility. Under the amended Rule 702, opinions must reflect reliable methods applied to the case's facts.
This decision underscores that experts must have targeted knowledge relevant to the product in question and that alternative designs must be supported by testing or data.
Case 3: Bunting v. Odyssea Marine
In Bunting, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana excluded testimony in a maritime injury case due to insufficient qualifications and unreliable methods.
The plaintiff's expert was a mechanical engineer but lacked experience in vessel operations, marine engineering, or naval architecture. The court emphasized that Rule 702 requires experts to have qualifications directly tied to the subject matter.
This expert's methodology was also problematic; his opinions relied on an outdated study from 1970, and he failed to conduct calculations relevant to the forces at play during the incident. Under the 702 amendment, Courts must now apply a more stringent gatekeeping standard by enforcing the requirement for rigorous and up-to-date methodologies, thoroughly applied to the facts.
This decision underscores the necessity of ensuring experts possess specialized expertise and use current, well-documented methodologies to support their conclusions.
Case 4: Safety Insurance Company v. EcoWater Systems
In Safety Insurance, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts excluded testimony in a product liability case involving a leaking water filter.
The plaintiff's first expert lacked qualifications in materials science or manufacturing. Although he was an appliance failure inspector, the court ruled that FRE 702 requires expertise aligned with the specific subject matter. The expert also improperly relied on the inadmissible opinions of another expert without independent analysis.
The plaintiff's second expert had relevant expertise but failed to conduct testing to support his conclusions about manufacturing defects. Under Rule 702, experts must apply reliable methods and demonstrate how those methods lead to their conclusions.
This case reinforces the courts' insistence on experts with precise qualifications and scientifically supported opinions, even when experts have relevant general experience.
Case 5: Stanley v. Denver Mattress Co.
In Stanley, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee excluded expert testimony in a premises liability case involving a floor outlet trip hazard.
The court ruled that the plaintiff's expert did not provide opinions that offered the required specialized knowledge. Additionally, determining whether the outlet was in a dangerous condition was within the common understanding of jurors, and expert testimony would not help them evaluate the evidence.
Also, the court found the expert unqualified to opine on human factors (e.g., customers' visual focus) and unreliable when discussing building code violations without verifying which codes applied.
This decision demonstrates the courts' focus on ensuring expert testimony adds value beyond jurors' common knowledge. Experts must also possess specific expertise for each opinion and avoid unsupported conclusions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
