Assessing Scientific Methodology in Toxic Tort Cases: General Electric Co. Et Al. v Joiner
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Author | Byron M. Sheldrick |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| DOI | 10.1177/136571279900300403 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
CASE
NOTE
Assessing
scientific
methodology
in
toxic
tort
cases:
General
Electric
Co.
et
a/.
v
Joiner
By
Byron
M.
Sheldrick
University
of
Winnipeg
The
recent
decision
of
the
American
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
General
Electric
Co.
et al. v
Joiner]
raises a
number
of
interesting
issues
with
respect
to
the
admissibility
of
expert
scientific
evidence in toxic
tort
cases. In
particular,
the
case deals
with
the
standard
of
review to be
applied
by
trial
courts
when
ruling
on
the
admissibility
of
expert
scientific
evidence
and
the
degree
to
which
courts
should
assess
the
methodology
employed by
experts
rather
than
simply
the
conclusions
reached
by
them.
Previous decisions
of
the
court
had
resulted
in
some
doubt
as to
the
approach
to be followed
when
dealing
with
expert
scientific
evidence. Moreover,
those
cases
had
appeared
to leave
open
the
possibility
that
scientific evidence
not
yet widely accepted in
the
scientific
community
might
be
admitted
into
court.
The decision in
Joiner
clarifies
these
matters,
and
appears
to restore
the
earlier
approach
of
the
court
which
emphasized
the
views
of
the
scientific
community
as
the
touchstone
of
admissibility.
Thefactsof
Joiner
The case involved a
claim
by
Joiner
for
damages
on
the
grounds
that
exposure
to
PCBs
during
his
employment
with
the
Water
and
Light
Department
of
the
city
of
Thomasville, Georgia
had
promoted
the
development
of
small
cell
lung
~
S Ct 512 (1997). The US
Supreme
Court's
decision
is also available
through
the
I
~~ernet
from
the
Legal
Information
Institute
and
Project
Hermes
which
can
be accessed at
http://supct.law.comell.edu/supctjhtml.
250
THE
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
EVIDENCE
&
PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial