E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson - 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995)

Rule:

In addition to showing that an expert witness is qualified, Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 702 also requires the proponent to show that the expert's testimony is relevant to the issues in the case and is based upon a reliable foundation. The trial court is responsible for making the preliminary determination of whether the proffered testimony meets the standards set forth today. Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 104(a). Rule 702 contains three requirements for the admission of expert testimony: (1) the witness must be qualified; and (2) the proposed testimony must be "scientific knowledge"; and (3) the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In order to constitute scientific knowledge, which will assist the trier of fact, the proposed testimony must be relevant and reliable.

Facts:

C.R. and Shirley Robinson brought suit against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for products liability, breach of warranty, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Ann. § 17.41-.63. The trial court excluded the testimony of Robinson’s expert witness upon finding that the expert's opinions were not scientifically reliable. The intermediate court reversed, holding that once Robinson established the witness' qualifications, the weight to be given the testimony and the credibility of the witness was to be determined by the trier of fact. DuPont sought review of the intermediate court's reversal.

Issue:

Was it proper to exclude the testimony of an expert witness upon finding that his opinions were not scientifically reliable?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court reversed the judgment of the intermediate court and affirmed that of the trial court. The court held that Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 702 required expert testimony to be relevant and reliable. The court said that because Robinson failed to establish that the proffered testimony was scientifically reliable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert witness. The court relied on federal case law that interpreted Fed. R. Evid. 702 in reaching its conclusion.