title: Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael.
abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, Kumho Tire, in a products liability action. The appeal resulted from a ruling by the Court of Appeals in the Eleventh Circuit that overturned the district court's exclusion of expert testimony. The plaintiff's expert had sought to testify regarding the reasons for a tire failure and blowout. The subsequent accident resulted in personal injury and the death of a passenger in the plaintiff's vehicle. The Supreme Court held that expert testimony, whether based on professional studies or on personal experience, is subject to the same standard of scrutiny for relevancy and reliability. This decision resolved a conflict that had arisen among the circuit courts of appeal with respect to this issue. The article first outlines the Court's decision, then considers the implication the decision has for the admissibility of expert opinion testimony in future cases.
authors.affiliation: University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS), Department of Psychiatry, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. al.grudzinskas@umassmed.edu
authors.forename: A J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Grudzinskas
mesh_terms: D000063:Accidents, Traffic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014481:United States