Product liability and toxic tort cases often turn on whether proffered scientific evidence is admissible. While most jurisdictions follow either the traditional Frye “general acceptance” test, or the newer Daubert “reliability” standard, New York has adopted a unique combination of Frye plus a post-Frye foundational reliability standard, which ultimately is as effective as Daubert.
This article explains how New York courts have found Frye to be relevant but insufficient to cull scientific wheat from chaff. In 2006, in Parker, the Court of Appeals held that there needed to be a second step: “General acceptance” was required when novel methodology was involved, and in addition, all scientific evidence needed to be supported by an adequate “foundation” of scientific studies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
