General Electric Co. v. Joiner 1997
Causation Torts – pg462 – 9/24/09
Parties: Π – Lung cancer patient ∆ - Employer w/ toxic materials Procedural History: - ∆ removed case to Federal court - ∆ moved for summary judgment 1) no ev of sig exposure to PCBs 2) admissible ev of PCBs promoting π cancer o Trial Court granted Appellate reversed Facts: - π continued to work with PCBs, a possible carcinogen, after they were banned by Congress - Developed lung cancer o Had other high risk attributes (smoker for 8 yrs, family had smoked, family history) but argued ∆ negligence expedited cancer Legal Issue: Should abuse of discretion be the standard used to evaluate whether to exclude expert testimony? Holding: No. Trial judges should have discretion to exclude expert testimony if there is an analytical gap in their evidence. Reasoning: - Circuit court Ø distinguish “abuse-of-discretion” review of expert vs other evidence - Judge is to act as gatekeeper under Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm. o ∆ argued that FRCP skew towards broadly admitting expert testimony - ∆ relied on animal studies and case studies that were inconclusive - ∆ argued it an abuse of discretion if court objects to expert conclusions o conclusions & methods Ø discrete o If there’s an analytical gap the judge can hold the ev from the jury Disposition: Reverse Dissent/Concurrence: - Concurrence (Breyer): Gatekeeping function key maintaining proper incentives in chemical industry created through tort liability - Partially Dissent/Concur (Stevens): Expert ev should be evaluated on balance
Notes: - N1 o o Daubert test extended from science to technical in Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael Appellate disqualification of expert testimony led to judgment against ∆ as a matter of law in Weisgram v Marley Co SC upheld no remand b/c ∆ should have originally provided its best evidence Daubert replaced old test from Frye v. United States that required expert testimony to be “generally accepted” by scientific community
-
N2 o
-
N3 o N4 o States left to choose between Frye & Daubert. Goeb v Tharaldson argue for Frye b/c judges being undeducated in science was deemed more damaging than scientists having to make evidentiary decisions of law Causation at dispute in Agent Orange cases which were dismissed b/c of lack of causal proof Abraham suggests 3 criteria for proving causation Substance – it can cause the injury Source – the ∆ was the source (Ø someone else) Exposure – π was in fact exposed RTT takes lower standard than Daubert on scientific evidence b/c objective proof not needed in court, merely minimum standard to exceed speculation Judge uses gatekeeper responsibility Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics to deny evidence in case where drug alleged to cause autism during pregnancy
-
N5 o o
-
N6 o