QUICK NOTE: …BACK TO THE DAUBERT STANDARD FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY

In what has previously appeared to be a game of moving chairs, the Florida Supreme Court formally adopted the Daubert standard to determine the admissibility of expert testimony.  This allows Florida to move on from the Frye standard and the moving chairs associated with which standard should apply to the admissibility of expert opinions.  A good discussion on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent application of the Daubert standard can be found here.  The Daubert standard determines the admissibility of expert testimony / opinions in federal court and now it is officially back in Florida to apply to Florida state court litigation.  This is important to know, particularly in the construction context, because many construction-related disputes utilize the services of an expert witness to render expert opinions.  

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

APPLICATION OF FRYE TEST TO DETERMINE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT

shutterstock_96050015Florida went back to the Frye test/standard, instead of the Daubert test utilized in federal court, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony.  The Frye test is more favorable to plaintiffs because it applies when an expert renders an opinion based on new or novel scientific principles.  See D.R. Horton, Inc. v.  Heron’s Landing Condominium Ass’n of Jacksonville, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D109b (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The supreme court has described the Frye test as one in which the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where the experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate. Stated differently, under Frye, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence with the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology.  However, as stated, the Frye standard only applies when an expert attempts to render an opinion that is based upon new or novel scientific principles.”). 

 

In D.R. Horton, Inc., a condominium association sued the developer and general contractor (same entity) for construction defects that included claims in negligence, violation of building code, and breach of statutory warranties.  The developer/general contractor moved in limine / to strike the association’s experts under, at the time, a Daubert analysis, but which became a Frye analysis during the pendency of the appeal.  The expert opined as to construction defects and damage and the appropriate repairs – really, no different than any construction defect dispute, from what it appeared. The trial court denied the motion and during trial the experts testified and a sizable damages judgment was entered against the developer/contractor prompting the appeal.  One issue on appeal was the admissibility of the expert’s opinion.  The appellate court noted that a Frye analysis is not necessary because the experts used a scientifically reliable and peer-reviewed methodology.  

 

A smart tactic, and I mean SMART tactic, that the association’s counsel seemed to utilize was to engage a third-party engineer to testify during a hearing that the methodology used by the association’s experts was industry standard methodology and generally accepted. Thus, the opinions were not based on new or novel scientific principles and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the contractor/developer’s motion in limine.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

 

AN EXPERT’S QUALIFICATIONS ARE IMPORTANT

shutterstock_351957167An expert’s qualifications are important. Please remember this the next time you retain an expert to analyze documents or data and render an opinion based on that information.  An expert must be qualified to render an opinion.  Otherwise the expert will not be allowed to render the opinion you may be looking for or need for purposes of trial, as discussed below.

 

A recent personal injury case, White v. Ring Power Corp., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2729a (Fla. 3d 2018), involved a crane operator that became severely injured when operating a leased crane.  The case proceeded to trial against only the equipment lessor of the  crane based on the plaintiff’s contention that there were deficiencies with the crane.   The plaintiff intended on using expert witnesses to interpret the crane’s load movement indicator (referred to as LMI) and render opinions that the LMI data showed prior overloads of the crane which resulted in the injury to the operator of the crane.

 

During a pre-trial motion, the trial court held that the experts were NOT qualified to interpret the LMI data and, therefore, were not qualified to render opinions based on this data.  The experts were not allowed to render such expert testimony at trial.  After the trial, the plaintiff appealed this ruling.  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed this pre-trial ruling.

 

The trial court’s decision to exclude portions of White’s [plaintiff] experts’ testimony was based upon a finding that these witnesses were unqualified to interpret the LMI data or offer opinions on its significance. This finding is supported by competent substantial evidence, including the experts’ own deposition testimony, in which they acknowledged, for example:

· Expert witness Barth: He has never been trained to interpret LMI data, never took a course on LMI systems, and stated he “self-trained” regarding LMI data by reviewing the instant accident and reading depositions of other witnesses. Barth acknowledged he was not proficient in reading LMI data, and a review of the deposition establishes that Barth was unfamiliar with the LMI system and had difficulty answering basic questions about its purpose and use.

*

· Expert witness Barbe: Although he certifies crane operators, he does not certify crane maintenance workers, is not a certified crane inspector, and none of his training specifically involves wire ropes. The cranes he inspects do not use LMI systems. He did not know how to download the LMI data on the crane in question, received no training on how to read LMI data, and was unfamiliar with many of the LMI codes contained in the data.

*

· Expert witness Mankins: He conceded to “not being an expert on LMI or this type of data”; “I wouldn’t know an LMI if I saw one”; “I have no personal experience with LMI systems, nor do I profess to have any expertise associated with such a system.” Mankins did not know the significance of a one-, two- or four-parts line on a crane, and acknowledged “I essentially know nothing about cranes.”

None of the three experts had ever interpreted LMI data or used LMI data to investigate the cause of a crane accident or wire rope failure. Instead, all three of White’s expert witnesses accepted the LMI data at face value without sufficient knowledge, training or expertise to interpret the data or opine as to its significance. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding that portion of their proposed testimony.

 

 

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

QUICK NOTE: EXPERT TESTIMONY – BACK TO THE FRYE TEST IN FLORIDA

imagesExpert testimony (opinions) – very important testimony in construction disputes.  Whether it is a delay claim, an inefficiency claim, a defect claim, etc., expert testimony plays an invaluable role in construction disputes.   Construction attorneys work closely with expert witnesses to ensure that an expert helps render an opinion to support their client’s burden of proof (including damages) or an affirmative defense.

 

 Recently, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Frye test governs the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida State courts.   Notably, this was the test used until circa 2013 until the Florida Legislature modified Florida’s Evidence Code to require the Daubert test to apply to determine the admissibility of expert testimony.  The Daubert test is the test used in federal courts and, quite frankly, is a more rigorous standard/test.   For more information on the Frye and Daubert test, please check out this article that I wrote to summarize Florida’s transition back to the Frye test.  In any event, this transition back to the Frye test can be both good and bad depending on who you represent in a Florida State court action and the expert opinion you are looking to introduce.  

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.