From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony

T H E S TAT E
R U L E S O F
A D M I S S I B I L I T Y
A Survey of How Expert Testimony Is Admitted In All 50 States
With Emphasis on Accident Reconstruction and Biomechanics

ExactSource, an industry leader in forensic engineering talent
acquisition, is often tasked with the difficult job of finding candidates
from all disciplines who possess a unique blend of skills and expertise.
When searching for forensic engineers our clients often request
candidates whose background allows them to qualify to testify as an
expert witness.
Unfortunately, there is no standard formula to determine whether or not
a forensic engineer can qualify on a particular topic in a particular court.
This e-book is intended to function as a tool to assist both forensic
engineering firms and potential candidates. You’ll find this 50-State
Guide to Expert Admissibility as a useful reference tool when making
an initial decision about whether to take a project or how to staff a
particular job. This is not meant to be a definitive guide to expert
admissibility in every situation and certainly should not be
used as a substitute for competent legal advice from
an attorney in your jurisdiction.

TA B L E
O F C O N T E N T S
4 Alabama
5 Alaska
6 Arkansas
7 Arizona
8 California
9 Colorado
10 Connecticut
11 Delaware
12 Florida
13 Georgia
14 Alabama
15 Alaska
16 Arkansas
17 Arizona
18 California
19 Colorado
20 Connecticut
21 Delaware
22 Florida
23 Georgia
24 Connecticut
25 Delaware
26 Florida
27 Georgia
28 Alabama
29 Alaska
30 Arkansas
31 Arizona
32 California
33 Colorado
34 Connecticut
35 Delaware
36 Florida
37 Georgia
38 Alabama
39 Alaska
40 Arkansas
41 Arizona
42 California
43 Colorado
44 Connecticut
45 Delaware
46 Florida
47 Georgia
48 Connecticut
49 Delaware
50 Florida
51 Georgia
52 Connecticut
53 Delaware
54 Florida
51 Georgia

A L A B A M A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye/Rules of Evidence*1
License Required Yes**2
Accident Reconstruction Yes**3
Biomechanics Yes**4
*The Alabama courts have not abandoned the Frye test of admissibility; however, they
also consider the Rules of Evidence which requires the witnesses to be qualified and helpful to
the trier of fact.
**An engineering expert witness only needs a license when testifying about work that
can only be legally done by a professional engineer. The witness does not have to be licensed in
Alabama, but in some jurisdiction of the U.S.
1
Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So. 2d 198 (2000)
2
Arthur v. Bolen, 41 So. 3d 745, (2010)
3
Gooden v. City of Talladega, 966 So. 2d 232, (2007)
4
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller, 46 So. 3d 434 (2010)A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E

A L A S K A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert5
License Required No6
Accident Reconstruction Yes7
Biomechanics Yes8
Tests conducted in preparation for a trial should be peer-reviewed to ensure they pass a
Daubert challenge. No side in a trial may have more than three expert witnesses unless given
special permission by the court. An expert witness retained or employed to give testimony in a
case must file a pre-trial report at the direction of the court with a complete statement of all
opinions to be given, information or data used to form the opinions, any exhibits to be offered in
support of their opinions, the witness’s qualifications, a list of all publications by the witness in
the previous ten years, the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony, and a list of
other trials and depositions given in the previous four years.
5
State v. Coon, 974 P. 2d 386 (1999)
6
Little Susitna Construction Co. v. Soil Processing, 944 P. 2d 20
7
Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992 (2005)
8
Cable v. Shefchik, 985 P. 2d 474 (1999) A P U B L I C AT I O N

A P U B L I C AT I O N
A R I Z O N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*9
Biomechanics Yes12
*The Frye test does not apply to experts who reach their conclusions through “inductive
reasoning based on his or her own experience, observation, or research.” Only when using novel
scientific principles or procedures developed by others is it necessary for an expert to pass a Frye
hearing.
9
Logerquist v. Mcvey, 196 Ariz. 470 (2000)
10
Bliss v. Treece, 134 Ariz. 516 (1983)
11
Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (2006
12
Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (2006

A R K A N S A S
Accident Reconstruction Yes*15
Biomechanics **
*Expert accident reconstruction testimony is only allowed in situations where there are
no eye witnesses, the eye witness testimony is contradictory, the eye witness would not be able
to understand what caused the accident, or the jury would not be able to draw their own
conclusions.
**There is no case law on biomechanics testimony to date, but occupant kinematics
evidence has been allowed.16
13
Green v. Alpharma, Inc., 373 Ark. 378 (2008)
14
Parker Construction Co. v. Aldridge, 312 Ark. 69 (1993)
15
Drope v. Owens, 298 Ark. 69 (1989) and Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Daggett, 354 Ark. 112 (2003)
16
Carr v. GMC, 322 Ark. 664 (1995)

C A L I F O R N I A
Daubert, Frye or other. Other: Kelly-Frye*17
License Required No**18
Biomechanics Yes20
*The Kelly-Frye test is basically the Frye test with two additional requirements: (1) the
witness must be qualified in the field they offer testimony in, and (2) the methods used to gather
data must also meet the general acceptance rule. The Kelly-Frye test only applies to new science.
**To be declared an expert, a witness does not need any particular license, but must
demonstrate specialized knowledge in their field.
17
People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24 (1976)
18
People v. King, 266 Cal. App. 2d 437 (1968)
19
Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1298 (2011)
20
Soule v. GMC, 8 Cal. 4th 548 (1994)

C O L O R A D O
Daubert, Frye or other. Other: Rules of Evidence*21
Biomechanics Yes24
*Colorado Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony in Colorado. It requires the
testimony to be based on reliable scientific principles, the witness to be qualified in their field, and that the testimony
will be helpful to the jury in understanding the facts. Reliability is judged by a flexible list of factors: (1) if the
techniques used to gather data can be tested, (2) if the techniques have been subjected to peer review, (3) the rate of
error, (4) if the technique has been generally accepted, (5) the relationship between the expert’s technique and other
more established methods, (6) the existence of supporting literature, (7) uses for the technique outside of litigation,
(8) types of error generated by the technique, and (9) if the techniques have been accepted in other similar cases. The
expert’s qualifications and helpfulness are more straightforward criteria and will be judged by the court.
Colorado also requires experts that have been retained to offer testimony to submit pretrial summaries of their opinions,
methods, exhibits, qualifications, and all previous trials they’ve offered testimony for in the previous four years.
21
People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (2001)
22
Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision, Inc., 969 P.2d 681 (1998)
23
Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574 (2003)
24
Schultz v. Wells, 13 P.3d 846 (2000)

C O N N E C T I C U T
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*25
Biomechanics Yes28
*Connecticut added three requirements to the original Daubert four: (1) if the testimony
is objective, (2) if the witness can explain their testimony in a way that helps the jury, and (3) if
the expert’s methodology was developed solely for litigation or has other uses. These additional
factors are awarded less weight than the Daubert factors but can be important when the reliability
of the evidence is otherwise difficult to determine. The validity of the methodology is more
important than an expert’s qualifications.
25
Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (2010)
26
Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 116 Conn. App. 483 (2009)
27
Hicks v. State, 287 Conn. 421 (2008)
28
DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583 (2010)

D E L A W A R E
License Required Yes*30
Biomechanics Yes**32
*Delaware requires that engineers be licensed in a state, not necessarily Delaware, to offer expert testimony.
**Delaware has very strict guidelines on how they judge biomechanics testimony. The courts recognize biomechanical
testimony that demonstrates what forces may have acted on a body and what effects those forces may have had. If
attempting to prove injury causation, the testimony must provide definitive evidence that specific physical forces caused
the precise injury to the particular person. This testimony can contradict medical testimony when the physics of the event
clearly differ from what the medical testimony claims happened. One example of these strict guidelines was a car accident
case where the Delaware Supreme Court threw out biomechanical testimony despite the unquestioned qualification of the
expert and his methods, because the victim of the accident had undergone back surgery for pain prior to the crash. The
courts decided that because the biomechanics expert had not reviewed the victim’s prior medical history and did not take
this “abnormal” body condition into account, his testimony was invalid.
29
M.G. Bancorporation v. LeBeau, 737 A.2d 513 (1999)
30
24 Del. C. §2802A
31
Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso, 759 A.2d 582 (2000)
32
Eskin v. Carden, 842 A.2d 1222 (2004)

F L O R I D A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye33
License Required No*34
*The Florida law says that a witness may be qualified as an expert if they have a professional degree from a
college or university and has had special professional training and experience, or if the individual is possessed
of special knowledge or skill about a subject. For engineering testimony, the witness is expected to be
licensed unless extremely qualified.
**Biomechanics experts are allowed to testify about the forces in an accident and how a body may react, but
they are strictly prohibited from testifying about the extent of an injury that an individual may have suffered
in an accident. A witness must have a medical degree to testify to specific injury causation.37
33
Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543 (2007)
34
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.390
35
Goldberg v. Florida Power and Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (2005)
36
Griffen v. Kia Motors Corp., 843 So. 2d 336 (2003)
37
Mattek v. White, 695 So. 2d 942 (1997)

G E O R G I A
Biomechanics Yes*41
*Biomechanics expert prevented from testifying because he had not investigated either
the vehicle or the victim.
Go Dawgs!
38
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (2008)
39
Agri-Cycle LLC v. Couch, 284 Ga. 90 (2008)
40
State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. Matty, 286 Ga. 611 (2010)
41
Brown v. Hove, 268 Ga. App. 732 (2004)

H A W A I I
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*42
Biomechanics Yes45
*Hawaii’s rules of evidence dictate that an expert witness’s testimony must meet five
criteria to be permissible in court: (1) the testimony must be helpful to the jury, (2) it must aid
the jury’s understanding of the facts, (3) the underlying theory must be valid, (4) the correct
procedures must be used to gather the data, and (5) any procedures used to gather data must be
performed properly.
42
State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507 (1996)
43
Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co., 85 Haw. 336 (1997)
44
Wemple v. Dahman, 103 Haw. 385 (2004)
45
Udac v. Takata Corp., 121 Haw. 143 (2009)

I D A H O
Biomechanics Yes49
*Idaho uses their Rules of Evidence as the test of admissibility. The main requirement is
that the evidence be helpful to the jury. The courts will also inquire about the principles and
methodology behind the expert’s opinion and whether they are testable and peer reviewed.
46
Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Services, 143 Idaho 834 (2007)
47
Jones v. Jones, 117 Idaho 621 (1990)
48
Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756 (2009)
49
Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756 (2009)

I L L I N O I S
Biomechanics Yes53
*In Illinois, the Frye standard is mainly applied to the methodology and principles behind
the testimony, instead of the expert’s conclusions.
50
People v. Mckown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (2010)
51
Somers v. Quinn, 373 Ill. App. 3d 87
52
Zavala v. Powermatic, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 542 (1995)
53
Fronabarger v. Burns, 385 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2008)

I N D I A N A
*Part (b) of Indiana’s Rule 702 states that “Expert scientific testimony is admissible only
if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are
reliable.” The Indiana courts regard the Daubert factors as “helpful, but not controlling,” on
judging the reliability of expert witness testimony.
**Biomechanics testimony is not allowed to testify about causation, only the physical
forces involved and reaction of a body.
54
Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (1995)
55
Hammond v. Indiana H. B. R. Co., 175 Ind. App. 644 (1978)
56
Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (2005)
57
Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (2005)

I O W A
Daubert, Frye or other. Other*58
Biomechanics Yes61
*Iowa has an ad hoc approach to admitting expert testimony.62 They usually look for
testimony to be reliable and understandable. For especially novel or complex science, they do
identify the Daubert factors as general guidelines. Typically, a Daubert challenge is only proper
for expert scientific testimony. Technical and other non-scientific evidence does not have to pass
the Daubert criteria.
58
Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (2010)
59
Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (2010)
60
Nichols v. Schweitzer, 472 N.W.2d 266 (1991)
61
Oelwein Community School District v. Williams, 2003 Iowa App. Lexis 531 (2003)
62
State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80 (1980)

K A N S A S
Biomechanics *
*There is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics evidence in Kansas.
63
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443 (2000)
64
Cline v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 182 Kan. 155 (1957)
65
McElhaney v. Rouse, 197 Kan. 136 (1966)

K E N T U C K Y
Biomechanics Yes69
Experts must disclose how much they are being compensated for their testimony.
66
Toyota Motor Corp. v. Gregory, 136 S.W.3d 35 (2004)
67
Kentucky Revised Statutes § 322.010
68
Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (2000)
69
CSX Transportation, Inc., v. Begley, 313 S.W.3d 52 (2010)

L O U I S I A N A
Biomechanics Yes73
70
State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (1993)
71
State v. Pelt, 448 So. 2d 1294 (1984)
72
State v. Pelt, 448 So. 2d 1294 (1984)
73
Taylor v. Progressive Security Insurance Co., 33 So. 3d 1081 (2010)

M A I N E
*The rules of evidence require judges to consider if (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the
testimony is relevant, and (3) the testimony will assist the trier of fact. Indicators of reliability
include whether the testimony (1) has been peer-reviewed, (2) if other similar studies have been
done, (3) if other experts support the methods used in the testimony, (4) the expert’s
qualifications, and (5) if there is a scientific basis for causation.
**There is no specific case law about biomechanics, but occupant kinematics has been
approved by the Maine courts.
74
Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pa., Inc., 2005 ME 94 (2005)
75
State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (2011)
76
State v. Irving, 2003 ME 31 (2003)
77
State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (2011)

M A R Y L A N D
Biomechanics Yes81
*The Frye examination in Maryland also covers the methods and theories behind the
expert’s testimony. Testimony can also be excluded on lack of relevancy or qualification.
78
Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md, 575 (2009)
79
Vroom v. Arundel Gas Co., 262 Md. 657 (1971)
80
Charles County Commissioners v. Johnson, 393 Md. 248 (2006)
81
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nave, 129 Md. App. 90 (1999)

M A S S A C H U S E T T S
License Required No**83
Biomechanics Yes85
*Massachusetts still acknowledges general acceptance as the most critical factor for
judging expert testimony. Only when an expert’s testimony involves science that lacks general
acceptance is a Daubert hearing necessary. There are five foundational requirements for expert
testimony: helpfulness, qualifications, reliability of facts and data, reliability of process and
theory, and that the process/theory is applied to the facts/data reliably.
**The law does not include testimony as part of the practice of engineering that requires
a license, but there are no cases where an unlicensed engineer was allowed to give testimony.
82
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994)
83
Leibovich v. Antonellis, 410 Mass. 568 (1991)
84
Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 653 (2009)
85
Commonwealth v. Power, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (2010)

M I C H I G A N
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert/Frye*86
*Michigan incorporates both the Frye and Daubert admissibility standards into their rule
of evidence. Testimony must pass a Daubert challenge, and if it is novel evidence, the testimony
must be proven to be based on science that has achieved general acceptance in its field.
**Biomechanics experts are not allowed to testify about the precise cause of a specific
injury, or, in the case of product liability, the safety of a proposed improvement of a product.
86
Clerc v. Chippewa County War Memorial Hospital, 477 Mich. 1067 (2007)
87
People v. Hawthorne, 293 Mich. 15 (1940)
88
People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (2010)
89
Hershey v. Black and Decker, 2008 Mich. App. Lexis 1919

M I N N E S O TA
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye+*90
License Required No**
Biomechanics Yes92
*Along with general acceptance, Minnesota requires that evidence found through the
expert’s use of scientific technique must be grounded in reliable science. Essentially, the
techniques that experts use to investigate an issue at trial must be scientifically valid.
**Minnesota law does not include expert testimony as part of the practice of engineering
requiring a license, but the case law seems to indicate almost all expert engineering testimony
was given by registered engineers.93
90
State v. Traylor, 656 N.W.2d 885 (2003)
91
W.G.O. ex rel A.W.O. v. Crandall, 640 N.W.2d 344 (2002)
92
Malith v. Soller, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. Lexis 552 (2010)
93
Minn. Statute § 326.02

M I S S I S S I P P I
License Required Yes*95
Biomechanics Yes97
*Experts wishing to provide engineering testimony in Mississippi must obtain a limited
license in Mississippi. To qualify for a limited license, the expert needs to be licensed as an
engineer in another jurisdiction.
94
Miss. Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (2003)
95
Miss. Code Annotated § 73-13-3
96
Denham v. Holmes, 60 So. 3d 773 (2011)
97
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite, 53 So. 3d 749 (2011)

M I S S O U R I
Biomechanics Yes101
*The Missouri statutes require that the court determine (1) if an expert is qualified, (2) if
the testimony will help the trier of fact, (3) if the testimony is based on data and methods found
reliable by other experts in the field, and (4) if the court finds the testimony otherwise reliable.
98
State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (2003)
99
Yantzi v. Norton, 927 S.W.2d 427 (1996)
100
Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (2010)
101
Eltiste v. Ford Motor Co., 167 S.W.3d 742 (2005)

M O N TA N A
Biomechanics Yes105
*Only novel scientific evidence is subject to a Daubert challenge, but all scientific
evidence must be deemed admissible as stated in Montana Rules of Evidence, Rule 702.
Montana’s Rule 702 is equivalent to the Federal Rule 702 which requires that the witness be
qualified, the evidence be reliable, and the testimony be relevant to the case.
102
Hulse v. DOJ, Motor Vehicle Division, 1998 MT 108 (1998)
103
Hammer v. State, 2007 Mont. Dist. Lexis 131 (2007) affirmed by Montana Supreme Court
104
Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 2003 MT 47 (2003)
105
Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 244 Mont. 61 (1990) Overruled on other grounds

N E B R A S K A
Biomechanics Yes109
106
Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215 (2001)
107
Northern Natural Gas Company v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 202 Neb. 300 (1979)
108
Ford v. Estate of Clinton, 265 Neb. 285 (2003)
109
Shipler v. GMC, 271 Neb. 194 (2006)

N E V A D A
Biomechanics No**113
*The Nevada Rule 702 has three prongs to test admissibility: (1) that the witness is qualified, (2) that their knowledge will assist the
trier of fact, and (3) that they only testify to matters within their field of expertise.
The most important factor is whether or not their testimony will assist the jury. To be helpful, expert testimony must be based on
reliable methodology. Courts determine reliability by examining if the testimony is (1) within a recognized field of expertise, (2)
testable and has been tested, (3) published and subject to peer review, (4) generally accepted within the scientific community, and (5)
based on “particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, orgeneralization…” If the testimony is based on an experiment the
court is also required to consider (1) if the experiment was controlled by known standards, (2) if the testing conditions were similar to
the conditions of the original incident, (3) if there was a known error rate, and (4) if it was developed just for the litigation the expert
was involved in. **Biomechanics testimony was thrown out in a case as unreliable because the party producing the witness failed to
provide any evidence that biomechanics was within a recognized field of expertise. Also, the witness failed to offer any scientific basis
for his opinion as he did not investigate the events of the accident or attempt to reconstruct them.
110
Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648 (2010)
111
Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (2008)
112
Sheriff, Clark County v. Burcham, 198 P.3d 326 (2008)
113
Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (2008)

N E W H A M P S H I R E
Biomechanics Yes117
*A Daubert hearing is only necessary in cases where the evidence is based on science
that is not “taken for granted”.
114
Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002)
115
Marcotte v. Peirce Construction Co., 111 N.H. 226 (1971)
116
Mclaughlin v. Fisher Engineering, 150 N.H. 195 (2003)
117
Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, 147 N.H. 150 (2001)

N E W J E R S E Y
Biomechanics Yes121
*New Jersey Rule 702 has three requirements: that the testimony is reliable, helpful to
the trier of fact, and that the witness is qualified. Reliability can be established through general
acceptance or use of the testimony in other judicial decisions.
118
Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 NJ 6 (2008)
119
Alliance for Disabled in Action, Inc., v. Continental, 371 NJ Super. 398 (2004)
120
Campione v. Soden, 150 NJ 163 (1997)
121
Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 NJ 6 (2008)

N E W M E X I C O
Biomechanics Yes125
122
Lee v. Martinez, 96 P.3d 291 (2004)
123
Baerwald v. Flores, 122 NM 679 (1996)
124
Harrison v. ICX, 98 NM 247 (1982)
125
Baerwald v. Flores, 122 NM 679 (1996)

N E W Y O R K
Biomechanics Yes129
126
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 2006 Slip Op 7391 (2006)
127
Caprara v. Chrysler Corporation, 52 NY 2d 114 (1981)
128
Soto v. NY City Transit Authority, 6 NY3d 487 (2006)
129
Mathis v. NY Health Club, Inc., 288 AD2d 56 (2001)

N O R T H C A R O L I N A
Biomechanics Yes133
*The North Carolina Rule 702 requires expert testimony to be (1) reliable, (2) given by a
qualified witness, and (3) relevant to the issue at trial.
130
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 NC 440 (2004)
131
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 NC 440 (2004)
132
NC Gen Stat. 8C-1, Rule 702
133
Floyd v. McGill, 156 NC App. 29 (2003)

N O R T H D A K O TA
Biomechanics **
*North Dakota only requires that expert testimony be helpful to the trier of fact and
presented by a qualified witness. There are no specific requirements for qualification, and North
Dakota encourages a very liberal admissibility policy.
**There is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics, but kinematics evidence has
been allowed by North Dakota courts.137
134
State v. Hernandez, 2005 ND 214 (2005)
135
Endresen v. Scheels Hardware and Sports Shop, 1997 ND 38 (1997)
136
Wolf v. Estate of Seright, 1997 ND 240 (1997)
137
Usry v. Theusch, 521 NW 2d 918 (1994)

O H I O
Biomechanics Yes141
138
Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St. 3d 351 (2007)
139
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Tomchik, 134 Ohio App. 3d 765 (1999)
140
Lanham v. Wilson, 1991 Ohio App. Lexis 3820 (1991)
141
Lee v. Mendel, 1999 Ohio App. Lexis 3892 (1999)

O K L A H O M A
Biomechanics Yes145
142
Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (2003)
143
Howlett v. Mayo’s Inc., 186 Okla. 651 (1940)
144
Snyder v. Dominguez, 2008 OK 53 (2008)
145
Nash v. GMC, 2007 OK Civ. App. 11 (2007)

O R E G O N
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of evidence+Daubert+*146
License Required Yes**147
Biomechanics Yes149
*The Oregon Supreme Court identified 17 factors that courts can use to judge the
reliability of scientific evidence:
146
Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, 331 Ore 285 (2000)
147
Oregon Revised Statutes §672.005
148
Dyer v. R.E. Christiansen Trucking, 318 Ore 391 (1994)
149
Hayes v. Huard, 108 Ore. App. 289 (1991)
1. General acceptance
2. Expert’s qualifications
3. The use which has been made of the technique
4. Rate of error
5. The existence of supporting literature
6. The novelty of the technique
7. The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation
of the expert
8. The existence of standards governing the expert’s methodology
9. Presence of safeguards in the expert’s methodology
10. Analogy to other scientific techniques whose results are admissible
11. Acceptance among other experts in the field
12. The nature and breadth of the inference adduced
13. The clarity and simplicity with which the technique can be described and
explained
14. The extent to which the basic data are verifiable by the court and jury
15. The availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique
16. The probative significance of the evidence in the case
17. The care with which the technique was employed
**To testify, an expert needs to obtain a temporary Oregon engineering license.

P E N N S Y LV A N I A
Biomechanics Yes153
150
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546 (2003)
151
Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321 (1974)
152
McManamon v. Washko, 2006 Pa. Super 245 (2006)
153
Raskin v. Ford Motor Company, 2003 Pa. Super 441 (2003)

R H O D E I S L A N D
Biomechanics *
*There is no case law on biomechanics in Rhode Island.
154
DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Company, 729 A.2d 677 (1999)
155
Owens v. Payless Cashways, 670 A.2d 1240 (1996)
156
Frias v. Jurczyk, 633 A.2d 679 (1993)

S O U T H C A R O L I N A
Biomechanics Yes160
*To be admissible in South Carolina, expert testimony must be (1) beyond the knowledge
of the average juror, (2) the expert must be qualified, and (3) the testimony must be reliable. To
judge reliability, the courts look at whether the methods used by the experts were (1) peer
reviewed, (2) used in applications outside of the present litigation, (3) monitored to ensure
quality results, and (4) consistent with recognized scientific laws and procedures.
157
Watson v. Ford Motor Company, 389 SC 434 (2010)
158
Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 370 SC 362 (2006)
159
Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 370 SC 362 (2006)
160
Wilson v. Rivers, 357 SC 447 (2004)

S O U T H D A K O TA
Biomechanics Yes164
161
Supreme Pork, Inc., v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 SD 20 (2009
162
Mulder v. Tague, 85 SD 544 (1971)
163
Vansteenwyk v. Baumgartner Trees & Landscaping, 2007 SD 36 (2007)
164
Maroney v. Aman, 1997 SD 73 (1997)

T E N N E S S E E
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence/Daubert*165
Biomechanics Yes168
*Tennessee’s Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of expert testimony, but the
courts have acknowledged the Daubert factors as helpful guidelines to determine the reliability
of the testimony.
165
McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, 955 SW 2d 257 (1997)
166
Martin v. Sizemore, 78 SW 3d 249 (2001)
167
Flax v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 272 SW 3d 521 (2008)
168
Brown v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 181 SW 3d 268 (2005)

T E X A S
License Required Yes170
Biomechanics Yes172
169
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 SW2d 549 (1995)
170
Texas Occupations Code 1001.003
171
TXI Transportation Company v. Hughes, 306 SW3d 230 (2010)
172
Shipley v. Holt Texas, Ltd., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3773 (2010)

U TA H
Biomechanics Yes176
*Utah does not require evidence to have gained general acceptance to be deemed
admissible, however, if evidence has attained general acceptance then it is almost always
admissible. Utah does require that expert testimony be based on science with “inherent
reliability” which means that the underlying scientific principles and methods must be reliable
and the derived evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact.
173
Phillips ex rel. Utah State Department of Social Services v. Jackson, 615 P.2d 1228 (1980)
174
Crafts v. Hansen, 667 P 2d 1068 (1983)
175
Ryan v. Gold Cross Services, 903 P 2d (1995)
176
SBD v. State (State ex rel. ZD), 2006 UT 54 (2006)

V E R M O N T
Biomechanics *
*To date, there is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics testimony in Vermont.
177
USGen New England, Inc., v. Town of Rockingham, 2004 VT 90 (2004)
178
South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 VT 33 (1980)
179
Smith v. Gainer, 153 VT 442 (1990)

V I R G I N I A
Accident Reconstruction Yes**182
Biomechanics Yes***183
*Virginia has its own state test called the Spencer Standard. The court must “make a
threshold finding of fact with respect to the reliability of the scientific method offered, unless it
is of a kind so familiar and accepted as to require no foundation to establish the fundamental
reliability of the system, such as fingerprint analysis.”
**Accident reconstruction testimony is rarely admissible in Virginia. The speed of the
vehicles in the accident specifically cannot be testified to in Virginia.
***Biomechanics engineers are not allowed to testify to injury causation. An expert must
have a medical doctor’s license to diagnose and discuss the cause of specific injury.
180
Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78 (1990)
181
Va. Code Annotated §54.1-400
182
Brown v. Corbin, 244 Va. 528 (1992)
183
Hollingsworth v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 279 Va. 360 (2010)

W A S H I N G T O N
Biomechanics Yes187
184
Medcalf v. Department of Licensing, 133 Wn.2d 290 (1997)
185
Channel v. Mills, 77 Wn. App. 268 (1995)
186
Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn. 2d 237 (2002)
187
Ma’Ele v. Arrington, 111 Wn. App. 557 (2002)

W E S T V I R G I N I A
Biomechanics Yes191
188
Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39 (1993)
189
Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 512 (1995)
190
Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W. Va. 209 (2008)
191
Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W. Va. 209 (2008)

W I S C O N S I N
Biomechanics Yes195
*Evidence in Wisconsin is admissible if (1) it is relevant, (2) the witness is qualified, and
(3) the evidence will assist the trier of fact. Reliability of the evidence is not a factor in
determining its admissibility; instead, reliability goes to weight.
192
Rico v. Riva, 2003 Wi. App. 182 (2003)
193
Wisconsin Statute §443.01
194
Franz v. Brennan, 150 Wis. 2d 1 (1989)
195
Gaertner v. Holcka, 219 Wis. 2d 436 (1998)

W Y O M I N G
License Required No*197
*There is no license requirement, but in matters dealing with product failure or liability,
experts are required typically to be very familiar with the specific brand and model of product at
issue. Witnesses must also be qualified in every area in which they plan to give testimony.
**There is a case where biomechanical evidence is allowed, but there are no cases in
Wyoming in which a biomechanical expert has given testimony.
196
Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P. 2d 467 (1999)
197
Herman v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, 675 P. 2d 1271 (1984)
198
Werner Enterprises v. Brophy, 2009 WY 132 (2009)
199
Hurley v. PDQ Transport, Inc., 6 P 3d 134 (2000)

I N T E R E S T E D I N
F O R E N S I C E N G I N E E R I N G
R E C R U I T M E N T ?
ExactSource is an industry leader in forensic engineering talent
acquisition. For more information, please visit
http://go.exactsource.com/forensic-engineering-recruiters
Interested in talking more about how our services can assist with your
firm’s forensic engineering needs?
Contact our practice area lead today for a complimentary consultation.
Chuck Detling
Partner, ExactSource
T 404.663.5218 | E cdetling@exactsource.com

From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony

Ähnlich wie From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony