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.

中文翻译：

---

Lee 诉 Smith & Wesson Corp.：产品责任案例研究

专家意见是产品责任诉讼领域的基本战略组成部分。一方的主张或辩护的成功往往取决于专家在审判中的证词，而“专家之战”迫使事实审判者“放弃其事实调查义务”，而只是采纳专家的意见证人的证词有说服力。” 专家意见的好处在法庭上引起了相当大的操纵——为了利用可信专家意见的高度说服力，诉讼当事人试图引入与手头案件只有微弱联系的专家证词。作为回应，联邦证据规则和相应的美国 最高法院（“最高法院”或“法院”）的先例已经严重限制了这些滥用诉讼策略，而是迫使初审法院法官评估所提供专家意见的相关性和可靠性，以确保该意见充分“符合”案件的事实。案件。本说明批评联邦证据规则 702（“规则 702”）编纂的专家证词的可采性进展，随后最高法院在 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 及其后代案中加以扩展。第一部分简要介绍了联邦法院专家证词的可采性。第二部分涉及第六巡回法院最近做出的决定，Lee v. Smith & Wesson Corp.，将规则 702 下的可采性扩展到包括与自己证人的口头证词直接矛盾的专家意见。最后，第三部分分析了 Smith & Wesson Corp. 的 2-1 决定，并反对多数意见的逻辑，而是支持异议对 Daubert、其后代和规则 702 的解释。