Admissibility of Human Factors Expert Testimony in Light of Daubert

Abstract

The 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. created new, more stringent rules for admissibility of expert witness testimony based upon “scientific” knowledge as opposed to expert testimony based upon “technical or other specialized” knowledge. Because human factors professionals may testify on the basis of either of the two categories, they should be aware of the requirements for admissibility of both categories. Each time one is engaged as a potential expert witness, the human factors-ergonomics professional needs to determine the basis of the testimony he/she is about to provide and to notify the client attorney accordingly. This lecture describes the evolution of requirements for admissibility of both kinds of expert testimony. It also discusses the implications of additional requirements imposed upon all expert witnesses by the 1993 amendment of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bliss

W.D.

(1979) Defective product design – Role of human factors. American jurisprudence: Proof of facts, 2nd series. 18: 117–148

Christensen

J.M.

(1986) Forensic human factors. In Kurke

M.I.

Meyer

R.G.

[eds] Psychology in product liability and personal injury litigation. N. Y., Hemisphere Publ. Co. pp 33–79

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc 113 S. CT 2786 (1993)

Faigman

D.L.

(1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it “scientific,” “technical,” or “other” knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1: No. 4., 960–979

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26 (Effective December 1, 1993).

Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates (1975), St. Paul, MN, West. § 702

Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Jenkins v United States. 307 F2d 637 (D.C. Cir 1962)