Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Carmichael (P) was injured, one passenger died, and others were severely injured when a tire failed on the rear of his minivan. P sued the tire maker and its distributor (D). Expert testimony was provided by Dennis Carlson, an expert in tire failure analysis. Carlson concluded that despite the age of the tire and the fact that two punctures had been inadequately repaired, the tire was defective. D rested this conclusion on the premise that a tire's carcass should stay bound to the inner side of the tread for a significant period of time after its tread depth has worn away, that the tire at issue had separated from its inner steel belt carcass prior to the accident, and that the separation caused the blowout. Carlson based his conclusion on the fact that there was physical evidence of over-deflection as a cause of the separation and as such, a manufacturing or design defect caused the separation. Carlson had testified that he had inspected the tire and conceded that the tire did show some of the symptoms of over-deflection but that these were not significant. D moved to have Carlson's evidence excluded in that Rule 702's reliability requirement had not been met. The court ruled in favor of D and eventually granted a summary judgment to D. P appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed; Daubert only covers the application of scientific principles and not when a party applies sill or experience-based observations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co