« Science and Asbestos | Main | Pollution as an Alternate Cause »

January 30, 2007


Bruce Nye


Interesting post. I've come to the conclusion that the likely outcome in a "science isn't there" case is directly related to whether or not the playing field is or is not governed by Daubert rules, or something like them. As you know, in California state court, we settle scientific issues by majority vote. My understanding is that Pennsylvania is a Frye state rather than Daubert state (Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038), and since Frye acts only as a limitation on methodology, not scientific opinion in general, this outcome isn't all that unpredictable. I blogged on how this works in California at CalBizLit.com on January 18.

oakley frogskins

Will development of this technology be delayed while we wait and see, or will people just take sensible precautions?

The comments to this entry are closed.