Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGrudzinskas, Albert J. Jr.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:24.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:07:32Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:07:32Z
dc.date.issued1999-09-06
dc.date.submitted2012-01-04
dc.identifier.citationJ Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(3):482-8.
dc.identifier.issn1093-6793 (Linking)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/45362
dc.description.abstractThe 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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10509947&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.jaapl.org/content/27/3/482.abstract
dc.subjectAccidents, Traffic
dc.subjectEquipment Failure
dc.subjectExpert Testimony
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subject*Liability, Legal
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subjectMental and Social Health
dc.subjectPsychiatric and Mental Health
dc.subjectPsychiatry
dc.subjectPsychiatry and Psychology
dc.titleKumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleThe journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
dc.source.volume27
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_cmhsr/481
dc.identifier.contextkey2429441
html.description.abstract<p>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.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathpsych_cmhsr/481
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychiatry
dc.source.pages482-8


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record