Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • Rubber News
  • European Rubber Journal
Subscribe
  • Login
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • Current Issue
  • Mid-Year Report
  • ADAS
  • News
    • OPINION
    • BUSINESS/FINANCIAL
    • COMMERCIAL TIRE
    • GOVERNMENT & LAW
    • Humanitarian Award
    • RETAIL TIRES
    • SERVICE ZONE
    • TIRE MAKERS
    • Best Places to Work
    • RUSSIA WAR IN UKRAINE
  • Data
    • DATA STORE
  • Custom
    • SPONSORED CONTENT
  • Resources
    • Events
    • DIRECTORY
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • SHOP FLOOR
    • AWARDS
    • ASK THE EXPERT
    • LIVESTREAMS
    • WEBINARS
    • SEMA LIVESTREAMS
    • RUBBER NEWS EVENTS
    • BALANCING
    • DEMOUNTING
    • SAFETY
    • TIRE REPAIR
    • TPMS
    • TRAINING
    • VEHICLE LIFTING
    • WHEEL TORQUE
    • Best Places to Work
  • ADVERTISE
  • DIGITAL EDITION
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
April 12, 1999 02:00 AM

COURT RULES FOR KUMHO IN LIABILITY CASE: SETS HIGHER STANDARD FOR NON-EXPERT WITNESSES

Miles Moore
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Print

    WASHINGTON—Non-scientific expert witnesses in product liability lawsuits may be held to the same evidentiary standards as scientific witnesses, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case of far-reaching importance to U.S. business. In a unanimous decision March 23, the high court ruled for Kumho Tire Co. Ltd., its U.S. subsidiary Kumho U.S.A. Inc. and Hercules Tire & Rubber Co. Inc. in a case stemming from a blowout involving a tire Kumho made for Hercules.

    The Kumho case was a lightning rod for the argument on how much leeway expert witnesses should be given in tort cases. Business interests including the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed briefs on Kumho's behalf, agreeing expert testimony should be limited strictly.

    On the other side, the Center for Auto Safety and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America claimed any limits on expert witnesses in effect limit the rights of injured parties to seek redress against companies that make defective products.

    ``We think it's an excellent decision for business,'' said Sussan Mahallati Kysela, counsel for the U.S. Chamber, regarding the Kumho ruling. ``It ensures that irrelevant, unsupported testimony is kept out of the courtroom.''

    ``This decision validates the points we made in our amicus brief, and augurs well for any future case in which expert testimony is introduced,'' added Donald B. Shea, president of the Rubber Manufacturers Association.

    ``The decision is a victory for business, and is widely seen as vindication for Kumho Tire,'' said David Poisson, executive vice president of the Tire Association of North America. ``We're very pleased with the high court's unanimous decision.''

    Clarence M. Ditlow III, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, said the case was a minor setback for plaintiffs, but will help them in the long run.

    ``I think this decision will make it easier, not harder, to get expert witnesses in,'' Mr. Ditlow said. ``It leaves that decision to the discretion of the courts, and it doesn't say you must require peer reviews of published articles. But you'd better have an expert whose opinions match the facts.''

    An earlier Supreme Court case, Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., set stringent factual standards for scientific witnesses in product liability suits. In the Kumho case, the Supreme Court ruled the Daubert standards may apply to technical and other witnesses as well.

    Trial judges have considerable flexibility in how they decide to apply the Daubert principles, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his decision for the court. ``Applying these standards, we determine that the district court's decision in this case—not to admit certain expert testimony—was within its discretion and therefore lawful.''

    A child was killed and seven other passengers injured in the 1993 accident which resulted from the blowout on Patrick Carmichael's minivan. Mr. Carmichael sued in Alabama federal district court, claiming the tire was defective.

    Backing Mr. Carmichael's claim was Dennis Carlson Jr., a former tire testing engineer for Michelin North America. Mr. Carlson based his conclusions on a process-of-elimination methodology he developed himself in his experience as a tire engineer.

    Kumho and Hercules moved to strike Mr. Carlson's testimony, claiming it didn't meet Daubert's standards for verification of expert evidence. The district court granted the motion, and because Mr. Carlson's testimony was the only evidence of a defect, it also granted Kumho and Hercules' motion for summary judgment.

    However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, ruling that since Mr. Carlson was an engineer and not a scientist, the Daubert standards didn't apply to him.

    In ruling for Kumho, Justice Breyer noted there is ``no clear line'' dividing scientific from technical testimony.

    ``Disciplines such as engineering rest upon scientific knowledge,'' he wrote. ``Pure scientific theory itself may depend for its development upon observation and properly engineered machinery.

    ``We do not believe that (the Daubert rule) creates a schematism that segregates expertise by type while mapping certain kinds of questions to certain kinds of experts,'' he added. ``Life and the legal cases that it generates are too complex to warrant so definitive a match.''

    While Mr. Carlson's professional qualifications are solid, Mr. Breyer wrote, there is no evidence that his methodology in determining tire defects is used widely in the tire industry.

    ``Indeed, no one has argued that Carlson himself, were he still working for Michelin, would have concluded in a report to his employer that a similar tire was similarly defective on grounds identical to those upon which he rested his conclusion here,'' he said.

    The court also ruled 8-1 to uphold the district court's disqualification of Mr. Carlson's testimony. The lone dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, said this question was beyond the high court's purview and should have been remanded to the appeals court.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Do you have an opinion about this story? Do you have some thoughts you'd like to share with our readers? Tire Business would love to hear from you. Email your letter to Editor Don Detore at [email protected].

    Most Popular
    1
    Average executive salaries found in Tire Talent report
    2
    Conti rolls out new taglines for Conti, General brands
    3
    Our View: Groups celebrate past by looking to future
    4
    Discount Tire installs RoboTire at Arizona store
    5
    TBC Brands expands Pennsylvania distribution warehouse
    SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS
    EMAIL ADDRESS

    Please enter a valid email address.

    Please enter your email address.

    Please verify captcha.

    Please select at least one newsletter to subscribe.

    Newsletter Center

    Staying current is easy with Tire Business delivered straight to your inbox.

    SUBSCRIBE TODAY

    Subscribe to Tire Business

    SUBSCRIBE
    Connect with Us
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Tire Business is an award-winning publication dedicated to providing the latest news, data and insights into the tire and automotive service industries.

    Reader Services
    • Staff
    • About Us
    • Site Map
    • Industry Sites
    • Order Reprints
    • Customer Service: 877-320-1716
    Partner Sites
    • Rubber News
    • European Rubber Journal
    • Automotive News
    • Plastics News
    • Urethanes Technology
    RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    • Terms of Service
    • Media Guide
    • Editorial Calendar
    • Classified Rates
    • Digital Edition
    • Careers
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    Copyright © 1996-2022. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Mid-Year Report
    • ADAS
    • News
      • OPINION
      • BUSINESS/FINANCIAL
      • COMMERCIAL TIRE
      • GOVERNMENT & LAW
      • Humanitarian Award
      • RETAIL TIRES
      • SERVICE ZONE
      • TIRE MAKERS
      • Best Places to Work
      • RUSSIA WAR IN UKRAINE
    • Data
      • DATA STORE
    • Custom
      • SPONSORED CONTENT
    • Resources
      • Events
        • ASK THE EXPERT
        • LIVESTREAMS
        • WEBINARS
        • SEMA LIVESTREAMS
        • RUBBER NEWS EVENTS
      • DIRECTORY
      • CLASSIFIEDS
      • SHOP FLOOR
        • BALANCING
        • DEMOUNTING
        • SAFETY
        • TIRE REPAIR
        • TPMS
        • TRAINING
        • VEHICLE LIFTING
        • WHEEL TORQUE
      • AWARDS
        • Best Places to Work
    • ADVERTISE
    • DIGITAL EDITION