Like with any civil litigation, product liability lawsuits require careful examination not just of the injuries sustained and the cause, but whether the vehicle was in fact defective. People are injured and killed all the time on our roads, and it doesn’t necessarily mean there was a problem with the car itself. Proving vehicle defects – even when there has been a recall of that vehicle or a certain part – often requires the testimony of an expert witness, such as an accident reconstructionist, engineer or mechanic.

For years in Florida, we vetted the testimony of these witnesses under a set of guidelines known as the “Frye Standard.” This standard asked simply whether the expert opinion was based on a scientific technique that was generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. However, a law that became effective in 2013 (to the delight of civil lawsuit defendants) required instead that the state begin using the Daubert standard. The revision of F.S. 90.702 means that expert witnesses now must endure a significant amount of pre-trial scrutiny, which in turn has made it tougher for plaintiffs to succeed in getting their case to trial. However, the Florida Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to revert back to the Frye Standard (a power it has, despite the legislative action, because it involves court procedure). 

Texas, too, uses the Daubert standard, and as we saw in the recent case of Sims v. Kia Motors Corp., before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it can result in significant hurdles for plaintiffs in car accident lawsuits.

According to court records, decedent (a father and grandfather) was seated in the back seat of a 2010 Kia Soul when the driver collided with another vehicle. The force of that impact caused the vehicle to be tossed like a pinball across the intersection, slamming into various objects in its path. One of those objects was a Yield sign. Part of that sign got stuck underneath the vehicle and pierced the gas tank. When the vehicle came to a stop, the driver and front seat passenger got out safely. But decedent two other passengers in the back were trapped because the doors wouldn’t open. With the gas tank ruptured, it exploded and the vehicle burst into flames. The three passengers died in the fire.

Plaintiff, one of decedent’s sons, sued the car manufacturer, alleging defective design. He asserted the manufacture should have made a gas tank that wasn’t prone to explosion and further that if a fire in the gas tank does occur, the vehicle doesn’t immediately explode so the people inside have a chance to get out.

Plaintiff presented the testimony of two expert witnesses to back his claim, both engineers. One was to testify about the way in which the sign pierced the underside of the vehicle and the other who would assert there was a doable, safer alternative design that would have prevented this kind of deadly fuel tank rupture. Defense moved to exclude these testimony under the Daubert standard, arguing it was not reliable.

The trial court granted that motion and plaintiff appealed. The 5th DCA affirmed. In keeping in line with the Daubert standard, the court ruled, the expert witness testimony was inadequate. Without that expert witness testimony, plaintiff did not have enough evidence to take the case to trial.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Sims v. Kia Motors Corp., Oct. 5, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog

More Blog Entries:

$35M Wrongful Death Verdict in Trucking Accident Lawsuit, Oct. 3, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Our Miami personal injury lawyers admit upfront: It sounds like a dry, technical issue only lawyers would care anything about. But here is why it matters: Any one of us could wind up in court for one reason or another – accused of a crime or victimized by one, suffering a personal injury or accused of the negligence that caused it. That means virtually everyone has a stake in which standard to apply to expert witnesses in state court.

The issue is widely seen as a battle that pits businesses versus plaintiffs. Businesses tend to favor the Daubert standard because they argue that it does away with so-called “junk science.” However, plaintiffs tend to favor Frye because applying this higher standard of evidence results in higher legal costs, extensive delays and, ultimately, restriction of court access to personal injury clients. There are certainly arguments to the pros and cons of both sides, and the Florida Supreme Court is weighing them after recent hearings. 

The Daubert standard, which federal courts use, is a strict standard for scientific expert testimony that typically requires something of a mini-trial before a judge reaches a decision about whether that expert – and his or her findings and conclusions – can be heard by a juror. Historically, Florida used the Frye standard, which simply asks whether the expert testimony is generally accepted among a given scientific community.

Both of these standards got their names from the respective court cases of which they were born.

Usually, it’s easier for plaintiffs to get helpful expert witness testimony in front of a jury under the Frye standard.

But recent evidence before the Florida Supreme Court added another layer of complexity to this issue: Criminal cases.

There is now an argument that under the Daubert standard, criminal attorneys might be able to hold police crime labs to greater accountability – particularly in cases that involve drug-sniffing dogs or roadside drug sample tests. In arguing for the Daubert system, defense lawyers say that it is in the best interest of justice to keep the standards of expert testimony strict in order to protect the rights of the accused.

However, the argument against the Daubert standard in both criminal and civil cases is that judges do not have the time and resources to evaluate any and all expert witness testimony in every case and that this is the job of jurors. Plus, it’s being noted that Daubert hearings are causing an extreme burden on federal judges, and adding to client attorney bills.

One Florida Supreme Court Justice asked whether the Daubert standard was being misused to keep out, say, ordinary medical testimony in personal injury lawsuits. That question was answered in the affirmative by plaintiffs’ counsel, who say it’s being used as a type of tactical tool that allows defendants to challenge causation even in the most typically straightforward cases.

There is no timeline on when the state high court will rule on this important issue, but you can bet lawyers across the country will be eagerly awaiting a decision.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Expert witness standard takes center stage at Florida Supreme Court, Sept. 1, 2016, By Jim Rosica, SaintPetersBlog.com

More Blog Entries:

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman – Proving Wage Loss Damages After Car Accident, Aug. 22, 2016, Miami Injury Lawyer Blog