Bendectin Case

Decent Essays
Their conclusions were based upon “in vitro” (test tube) and “in vivo” (live) animal studies that found a link between Bendectin and malformations; basically that the chemical structure of Bendectin was similar to other other substances known to cause birth defects; and the “reanalysis” of previously published epidemiological (human statistical) studies. In neither essence the submitted documents were never published nor peer reviewed articles demonstrated a link between Bendectin and birth defects. Merrell Dow had introduced evidence that no epidemiological study ever performed had concluded that the use of Bendectin by pregnant women significantly correlated with the incidence of birth defects in those women’s children (Atikian, 1994 p.1516).…show more content…
137, 141 (1999). Patrick Carmichael blew out the right rear tire of a minivan and in the incident one of the passengers died, and others were seriously injured. A diversity suit was brought against the tire maker, Kumho Tire Co., and its distributors, claiming that the tire was defective. Rule of Law: Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 702 gives the district judge discretion to determine reliability of evidence in regards to the circumstances and facts of a particular case. Dennis Carlson Jr. testified as an expert witness for the petitioners as a tire failure analyst, intending that the tire’s manufacture or design caused the blow out. Whereas his opinion was based on visual and tactile inspection of the tire; upon this theory this sort of tire failure was the result of a defect and not tire abuse. The petitioner’s moved to exclude Mr. Carlson’s testimony on the ground that his methodology failed to satisfy Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702. The District Court granted the petitioner’s summary judgment motion arguing that in examining the factors set out in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc. Mr. Carlson’s methodology is not reliable. (Kumho Tire Co., 2015). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, held that the District Court erred as a matter of law in applying Daubert, and held that the Daubert factors did not apply to Mr. Carlson’s testimony. (Kumho Tire Co., 2015). Judge Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion for the United States Supreme Court holding that the Daubert factors may apply to the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists. The District Courts decision to not admit Mr. Carlson’s expert testimony was lawful because it found his methodology unreliable after appropriate examinations (Rule 702,
Get Access