Applying Daubert to engineers testimony about defective design
Peter Nordberg over at Blog 702 posts on whether the Daubert standards for scientific expert testimony should be applied to engineering testimony on defective product design.
Nordberg argues such testimony is "generally better handled under Kumho Tire's rubric for 'experience based' expert testimony."
Engineers, psychologists and physicians "make frequent use of scientific information and scientific tools," but do not use the "scientific method" to determine diagnosis or cause and effect. "[t]hese fields also embody elements of judgment and imperfectly codified practical knowledge to a degree that 'harder' sciences do not (or profess not to). The hybrid nature of the conclusions reached by these experts does not mean the testimony is "governed by no standards at all. I means only that the governing standards for intellectual rigor are not those of the sciences, but must be gleaned by reference to the standards prevailing within the field..."
Here's the money quote: "Listen carefully, please, because we're going to say it one more time. Daubert promised you that there would be certain standards for expert scientific testimony. It did not promise you that all expert testimony would be scientific."