How the Daubert Standard Impacts Expert Witness Testimony

When handling lawsuits brought against schools and other child- and youth-oriented organizations on grounds of negligence, discrimination, bullying, abuse, student injury, disability matters, and other student or employee rights violations, plaintiff and defendant attorneys should prioritize enlisting expert witnesses whose qualifications and testimony can withstand the scrutiny of the opposing party’s attorney and judges during deposition and trial.

They must ensure that their expert witnesses are testifying to their specialty and that their testimony is relevant and reliable within the confines of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Daubert Standard for expert testimony.

The Daubert Standard and Rule 702 are still misunderstood, primarily due to the discretionary factors involved. This has led to the exclusion of many expert testimonies and, consequently, the weakening of claims or defenses in courts. Therefore, attorneys must understand how this standard can influence the admissibility of their expert testimony.

This article explores how courts use the Daubert Standard of Evidence and Rule 702 and the question, “What are the five Daubert Standards?”

Daubert and Rule 702

In child safety and supervision matters, attorneys and their experts must first ascertain that their testimony sufficiently and reasonably meets the admissibility criteria outlined under Rule 702. This serves as the basis for applying the Daubert Standard for assessing the reliability and relevance of expert testimony in courts.

First, Rule 702 permits attorneys to engage an expert witness qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Second is the element of relevance, which establishes that the expert’s knowledge must help the trier understand a fact of the case or evidence. Third is the reliability check, which requires that:

• “The testimony must be based upon sufficient facts and data and the product of reliable principles and methods.
• The witness must have applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”

Although the qualifications criteria are somewhat permissive, admissibility usually depends on the nature of the testimony. Courts will generally exercise broad discretion in assessing the expert’s qualifications in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Daubert Standard for expert testimony.

For instance, in the Carter v United States case, the court granted the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert testimony because even though the expert was an experienced doctor, he lacked the requisite knowledge, training, and experience in the emergency room care specialty. Therefore, the court affirmed that he was not in a position to offer reliable opinions on the appropriate standard of care that should have been adhered to.

In another case, the Mountaineers Foundation v The Mountaineers, despite the damages liability expert expressly stating during the deposition that he was not an expert in donors’ intent during monetary donations, he still moved to provide an expert opinion report touching on the subject matter. The district court deemed this step a violation of Rule 702 and excluded the part of his testimony that was outside the scope of his expertise.

Applying the Daubert Standard and Rule 702 for Expert Qualification for Testimony in School and Agency Liability Cases

In light of the above matters, attorneys should exercise their due diligence when engaging an expert witness for school or child agency-related liability cases to ensure the expert is well-credentialed and well-versed in the specific liability matter that they intend to testify to, be it the inadequacy of school supervision policies, breach of professional standard of care, or scope of school responsibility in a specific activity. High levels of proof maximize chances of admissibility.

An education expert is best qualified if they not only possess the right education (Ed.D.) and training but also have practical experience working in schools and in various positions, including teacher, department head, vice principal, principal, coach, superintendent, etc.

Having satisfied the requirements of Rule 702 that the expert be directly qualified and that their testimony be helpful to the trier of the case, the content of the testimony must then be rigorously assessed for reliability and relevance using the five Daubert Standards for expert testimony.

What are the Five Daubert Standards?

Let us examine each of these factors of the Daubert Standard of Evidence in the context of school—and child agency-related cases.

Testability

The court inquires whether the methodology or theory the expert used to arrive at his conclusions is testable and has been tested. Testing or evaluation can be achieved through experimentation, measurement, observed patterns, established norms, existing studies or statistics, or other reliable means — and any conclusions must be based on sufficient facts and data rather than speculations and subjective opinions.

So, if an expert witness claims that student injury resulted from an element of supervision, such as an inadequate supervisor-to-student ratio, they should be able to verify this opinion with, say, established child supervision norms or guidelines or data on similar cases. Whatever the expert’s theory is, there must be a clear link between the school’s action or inaction and injury risk.

Peer Review and Publication

In this element of Daubert Standards for expert testimony, the court leans on evaluating the expert’s theory or technique by other experts in the field through peer reviews or publication in industry journals, as this vouches for its validity and reliability.

Therefore, when testifying on school negligence, for instance, an expert witness must confirm that there exists literature by other student or child safety and supervision experts on the particular opinion.

Error Rate

The Daubert Standards for expert testimony involve court examination of the applied technique or theory for potential or known flaws or limitations that may produce errors. Depending on the nature of the testimony, these errors may be expressed numerically or otherwise. High error rates can render a testimony inadmissible.

Consider a student suicide case alleged to be due to bullying or discrimination. Here, gross errors may happen if there are contributing external circumstances beyond the school’s control that cannot be proven; for instance, could home-related issues like abuse have contributed to the student’s death?

Standards and Controls

Here, the court will need to know whether there are established and maintained standards governing the application of the expert’s technique or theory. These standards will act as controls for assessing the issue in question.

A child supervision expert may invoke the professional standard of care that the school should have adhered to in order to reasonably supervise a student in a specific scenario, as well as the relevant and up-to-date state, federal, and local laws and regulations or those of pertinent oversight organizations governing a particular activity.

General Acceptance

Last in the Daubert Standards for expert testimony is the general acceptance of a theory or methodology in the expert’s discipline.

In a negligent supervision case, widely accepted practices like needing a particular protective gear during sports may be easy to prove. Still, novel opinions may make it hard to admit a testimony.

Daubert Standards of Evidence are generally considered non-exhaustive, and the Federal Rules of Evidence grant judges great latitude in deciding preliminary questions for assessing an expert’s qualification, privileges, and admissibility of evidence. Therefore, attorneys and their experts should adequately understand their jurisdiction’s admissibility standards since many courts use a modified Daubert Standard.

SUMMARY

Expert testimony is instrumental in building a case or ensuring the defense’s success. Attorneys and their experts must prepare sufficient proof to establish the reliability of expert testimony so that it can meet the five Daubert Standards for expert testimony and Rule 702 and pass muster with the opposing attorneys and judges. Direct and strong expert qualifications in the specialty they are testifying to are extremely important. Additionally, the expert’s knowledge must be relevant, helping judges and the jury understand the facts of the case or evidence.

Expert Witness Services for School and Agency Liability Cases

At School Liability Expert Group, our court-qualified expert witnesses possess diversified qualifications in all aspects of school and child agency administration. Having worked with hundreds of law firms in the United States, parents, schools, and other child- and youth-oriented agencies, we have provided expert opinions in several child safety and supervision cases, firmly in line with the requirements of Daubert Standards for expert testimony and Rule 702. Attorneys can count on our team for prompt, reliable, and comprehensive consultations and expert witness services. Book a call today to discuss your school or agency liability matter with our experts.