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