Gerald A. King, J.D., CFEI
\nArmstrong Teasdale LLP, USA<\/p>\n
Karrie J. Clinkinbeard, J.D., CFEI
\nArmstrong Teasdale LLP, USA<\/p>\n
Presented at\u00a0International Symposium on Fire Investigation<\/a>, 2012<\/p>\n ABSTRACT<\/p>\n Both federal and state courts require experts to employ reliable scientific methodologies. Various jurisdictions employ different factors in determining whether an expert\u2019s methodology is scientifically reliable. For\u00a0years, courts have excluded unreliable expert testimony in fire litigation, an issue previously the subject of Experts\u00a0Beware: Ignoring the Scientific Method Can Be Hazardous to Your Testimony , an article and presentation included\u00a0in the ISFI 2010 Proceedings.<\/p>\n Despite the fact that the courts and NFPA 1033, the Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigators,\u00a0require fire investigators to employ all elements of the scientific method as the operating analytical process\u00a0throughout the investigation and for the drawing of conclusions, experts still fail to utilize the scientific method to\u00a0ensure the reliability of their opinions. Some experts still believe that they can ignore the scientific method by\u00a0claiming NFPA 921 is only a guide. Although many courts cite NFPA 921 as the \u201cindustry standard\u201d for judging an\u00a0expert\u2019s methodology, other courts exclude experts for the failure to follow the principles articulated in NFPA 921\u00a0without ever citing to NFPA 921. An expert\u2019s claim that NFPA 921 is \u201conly a guide\u201d does not relieve the expert\u00a0from demonstrating that the chosen methodology is scientifically reliable. The legal standards governing the\u00a0admissibility of an expert\u2019s opinion demand a scientifically reliable methodology. Ignoring the principles set forth\u00a0in NFPA 921 can and with almost certainty will result in exclusion\u00a0 of an expert\u2019s opinions (in whole or in part) and\u00a0open an expert to the risk of third party lawsuits.<\/p>\n This article provides an updated look at these issues and analyzes recent cases where an expert\u2019s testimony has been\u00a0excluded in fire litigation and, in some instances, the expert has been sued for these deficiencies. Experts are\u00a0excluded for ignoring facts or relying upon speculative facts. There is a trend towards excluding experts who do not\u00a0test their ignition theory, particularly in product liability cases. The common theme in these cases continues to be\u00a0that the expert ignored a step in the scientific method and, therefore, the opinions are unreliable and inadmissible.<\/p>\n Download the complete paper<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gerald A. King, J.D., CFEI Armstrong Teasdale LLP, USA Karrie J. Clinkinbeard, J.D., CFEI Armstrong Teasdale LLP, USA Presented at\u00a0International Symposium on Fire Investigation, 2012 ABSTRACT Both federal and state courts require experts to employ reliable scientific methodologies. Various jurisdictions employ different factors in determining whether an expert\u2019s methodology is scientifically reliable. For\u00a0years, courts have … Continue reading Have you tested your theory? Your risk of exclusion just doubled.<\/span>