Expert Testimony Should Not Be Excluded Because the Court Credits One Version of the Facts rather than Another

From Mater of the Complaint of Atl. Marine Prop. Holding Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61026 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2008):

Expert testimony should not be excluded "on the ground that the court believes one version of the facts and not the other." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hugh Cole Builder Inc., 137 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1285 (M.D. Ala. 2001). As the Allstate court stated:

[T]he rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. Daubert did not work a seachange over federal evidence law, and the trial court's role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

Share this article:


Recent Posts