A Daubert motion: A legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation

R.L. Melnick

American Journal of Public Health, 2005, vol. 95, issue S1, S30-S34

Abstract: In the US Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision, federal judges were directed to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and admit that which is scientifically reliable and relevant. However, if a judge does not have adequate training or experience in dealing with scientific uncertainty, understand the full value or limit of currently used methodologies, or recognize hidden assumptions, misrepresentations of scientific data, or the strengths of scientific inferences, he or she may reach an incorrect decision on the reliability and relevance of evidence linking environmental factors to human disease. This could lead to the unfair exclusion of valid scientific evidence, particularly that which is essential to a plaintiff's case in toxic tort litigation.

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.046250_7

DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().