IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2004.046250_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Daubert motion: A legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Melnick, R.L.

Abstract

In the US Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision, federal judges were directed to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and admit that which is scientifically reliable and relevant. However, if a judge does not have adequate training or experience in dealing with scientific uncertainty, understand the full value or limit of currently used methodologies, or recognize hidden assumptions, misrepresentations of scientific data, or the strengths of scientific inferences, he or she may reach an incorrect decision on the reliability and relevance of evidence linking environmental factors to human disease. This could lead to the unfair exclusion of valid scientific evidence, particularly that which is essential to a plaintiff's case in toxic tort litigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Melnick, R.L., 2005. "A Daubert motion: A legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 30-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.046250_7
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2004.046250?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2004.046250_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.