Michael A. Salvati

This product liability case involved a fatal helicopter crash, which the plaintiffs alleged was caused by a defective helicopter engine. Each side filed Daubert motions to preclude their opponent’s experts. The district court’s opinion is thorough and fact-intensive, but one notable aspect of the decision is the court’s application of the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, governing the admissibility of expert testimony.

As has long been the case, Rule 702 requires that the trial court act as a gatekeeper and evaluate proposed expert testimony on three criteria: (1) the expert’s qualifications, (2) the reliability of the expert’s methodology, and (3) the “fit” between the proffered testimony and the facts of the case.

In December 2023, Rule 702 was amended to re-emphasize that the proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden to establish each of the three admissibility criteria by a preponderance of the evidence. The Advisory Committee explained that many prior decisions made the mistake of characterizing disputes over expert testimony as “questions of weight and not admissibility” and improperly submitting such cases to the jury. As the Knight court elaborated, such decisions are “an incorrect application” of Rule 702—again, the proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden to establish its admissibility.

The District Court in Knight went a step further and concluded that prior decisions that featured this outdated and “erroneous” rationale—even precedential decisions of the Third Circuit—may now be disregarded as not reflecting the current state of Rule 702.

Though the bulk of the analysis in Knight, regarding the particular expert’s analysis of the subject helicopter crash, is fact-specific, the application of the re-invigorated Rule 702 is of use to all federal court practitioners. This amendment reaffirms the gatekeeper role of the trial judge. No more may expert testimony be submitted to the jury without the court first determining that the criteria for admissibility have been satisfied. Prior case law admitting questionable expert testimony may be distinguished and, perhaps, even disregarded. 

---

 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}