|
|
Article: The admissibility of differential diagnosis testimony to prove causation in toxic tort cases: the interplay of adjective and substantive law.
- Article from:
- Law and Contemporary Problems
- Article date:
- September 22, 2001
- Author:
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2001 Duke University, School of Law. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
JOSEPH SANDERS [*]
JULIE MACHAL-FULKS [**]
I
INTRODUCTION
In E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Robinson, [1] the Texas Supreme Court adopted an interpretation of the rules concerning the admissibility of expert testimony nearly identical to that adopted two years earlier by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [2] The court affirmed the trial judge's exclusion of Dr. Carl Whitcomb, the plaintiff's only causation expert, who was prepared to testify that the defendant's contaminated fungicide damaged the plaintiff's pecan orchard. In a vigorous dissent, Justice Cornyn noted that the ...