Lee v. Smith & Wesson Corp.: A Products Liability Case Study

Authors

  • Francesco G. Salpietro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2016.426

Abstract

Expert opinions are a fundamental strategic component in the field of products liability litigation. The success of a party’s claim or defense often depends upon an expert’s testimony at trial, and the “battle of the experts” forces triers of fact to “‘abdicate their fact-finding obligations’ and, instead, simply adopt the opinions of the expert witnesses whose testimony they find persuasive.” The benefits of an expert’s opinion have prompted considerable manipulation in court—in an effort to avail themselves of the highly persuasive nature of a credible expert’s opinion, litigants have attempted to introduce expert testimony bearing only a tenuous connection to the case at hand. In response, the Federal Rules of Evidence and corresponding U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court” or “Court”) precedent have severely curtailed these abusive litigation tactics, instead forcing trial court judges to assess a proffered expert’s opinion for both relevancy and reliability to ensure that the opinion adequately “fits” the facts of the case.

This Note critiques the progression of the admissibility of expert testimony codified by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) and subsequently expanded upon by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its progeny. Part I provides a brief history of the admissibility of expert testimony in federal court. Part II addresses a recent decision made by the Sixth Circuit, Lee v. Smith & Wesson Corp., which extended the admissibility under Rule 702 to include an expert’s opinion that directly contradicts the oral testimony of its own witness. Finally, Part III analyzes the 2-1 decision in Smith & Wesson Corp. and argues against the logic of the majority’s opinion, instead favoring the dissent’s interpretation of Daubert, its progeny, and Rule 702. 

Downloads

Published

2016-11-30

How to Cite

Salpietro, Francesco G. 2016. “Lee V. Smith & Wesson Corp.: A Products Liability Case Study”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 78 (1). https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2016.426.

Issue

Vol. 78 No. 1 (2016)

Section

Notes

License


Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

    2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

    3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
      1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
      2. Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
      3. No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

    4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

    5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

    6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

    7. The Author represents and warrants that:

      1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
      2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
      3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
      4. the Work has not previously been published;
      5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
      6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
         
    8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.