Daubert Standard

The Daubert standard is the test federal judges use to decide whether an expert witness's testimony is reliable enough to be presented to a jury. Under it, the judge acts as a gatekeeper and weighs factors like whether the expert's method can be tested, has been peer-reviewed, has a known error rate, and is generally accepted in the field. Many state courts have adopted it, while others still follow the older Frye standard.

Origin

The standard comes from the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, later refined by General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999). It interprets Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which governs expert testimony.

Significance in Asbestos Context

Asbestos cases depend heavily on experts, including pathologists, pulmonologists, industrial hygienists, and epidemiologists, so Daubert is often where the fight over your evidence happens before trial. Defendants routinely file Daubert motions to try to exclude your experts' opinions on causation, arguing the methods are unreliable, which can weaken or even end a case if granted. Your legal team will prepare experts whose opinions rest on accepted methods like fiber-burden analysis and established dose-response science. Knowing this helps you understand why expert reports are so detailed and why some disputes are decided by the judge rather than the jury.

Example Sentence

The defense brought a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff's causation expert, but the judge found the fiber analysis method reliable and let the testimony stand.

Related Terms

Frye Standard, Expert Witness, Rule 702, General Causation, Specific Causation, Gatekeeper

Notes

• Ask your attorney whether your case is in a Daubert or Frye jurisdiction, since the standard shapes which experts and methods hold up.
• Understand that a Daubert ruling can happen before trial and may significantly narrow the issues, so expert reports are worth reviewing early.
• Keep records of any published studies and standard methods your experts rely on, since general acceptance is one factor judges weigh.