Hollingsworth Joe G, Lasker Eric G
Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, DC, USA.
J Health Law. 2004 Winter;37(1):85-111.
For the past decade, federal judges have been obligated to serve as gatekeepers and keep scientifically unreliable and irrelevant expert testimony out of the courtroom. The exacting evidentiary standards set forth in the landmark Daubert decision have had a significant impact on numerous areas of legal dispute. Toxic tort litigation, in particular, has been transformed by the standards. This Article reviews the Supreme Court's adoption of the scientific method as the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. It analyzes how a court's proper understanding of the scientific method can guide it in evaluating the different types of causation evidence presented in toxic tort litigation, both with respect to general and specific causation. Throughout this discussion and in the concluding section, the Article reflects the authors' firm's experience as national defense counsel in a series of product liability cases involving the prescription drug Parlodel, in which these evidentiary issues have been analyzed extensively.
在过去十年里，联邦法官有义务充当把关人，将科学上不可靠且不相关的专家证词排除在法庭之外。具有里程碑意义的“道伯特案”判决所确立的严格证据标准，对众多法律纠纷领域产生了重大影响。尤其是有毒侵权诉讼，已因这些标准而发生了转变。本文回顾了最高法院采用科学方法作为专家证词可采性的标准。它分析了法院对科学方法的正确理解如何能在评估有毒侵权诉讼中提出的不同类型因果关系证据时为其提供指导，这涉及一般因果关系和特定因果关系。在整个讨论过程以及结论部分，本文反映了作者所在律所作为国防律师在一系列涉及处方药“溴隐亭”的产品责任案件中的经验，在这些案件中，对这些证据问题进行了广泛分析。
