258 So. 3d 1219
Fla.2018Background
- Richard DeLisle sued multiple defendants after developing mesothelioma, proceeding to trial against Crane, R.J. Reynolds (Lorillard), and Hollingsworth & Vose (H & V); jury returned $8M and apportioned fault among defendants and two nonparty Fabre defendants.
- Plaintiff presented multiple expert witnesses on asbestos exposure and causation; trial court admitted their testimony after Daubert-style hearings.
- The Fourth District reversed as to some defendants, holding the trial court failed in gatekeeping under Daubert and ordered new trial/ directed verdicts for certain defendants.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the 2013 legislative amendment to section 90.702 (adopting Daubert) improperly intrudes on the Court’s rulemaking authority and whether Frye remains controlling for novel scientific evidence.
- The Supreme Court held the 2013 amendment offended the Court’s procedural rulemaking power, reaffirmed Frye for novel-scientific evidence in Florida, and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly applied Daubert to exclude experts | DeLisle argued experts met admissibility and the evidence was not novel medical causation | Crane/R.J. Reynolds argued experts unreliable and should be excluded under Daubert | Fla. Sup. Ct.: Daubert amendment is unconstitutional intrustion; Frye remains the standard for novel scientific evidence; experts' testimony properly admitted |
| Whether 2013 amendment to §90.702 is a valid legislative change to admissibility standard | DeLisle implicitly relied on existing judicial standards (Frye/Marsh) and trial-court gatekeeping | Defendants relied on amended §90.702 (Daubert) as controlling statutory law | Held: amendment is procedural and infringes Court’s rulemaking authority; cannot replace court-made Frye rule by simple statute |
| Whether medical causation testimony in asbestos cases is subject to Frye | DeLisle: medical causation is established, not novel | Defendants: challenged causation methodology as unreliable under Daubert | Held: medical causation for mesothelioma is not new or novel; Frye analysis not required; trial court did not abuse discretion admitting testimony |
| Whether appellate reversal for remittitur/new trial was appropriate | DeLisle: verdict reasonable; trial court rulings proper | Defendants: verdict excessive or admission errors required new trial/remittitur | Held: Fourth District erred in excluding testimony and applying Daubert; judgment reinstated; remittitur claims not addressed further |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal standard requiring trial-court gatekeeping of expert reliability)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2007) (Florida reaffirmation of Frye for novel scientific evidence)
- Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1989) (adoption of Frye for certain scientific evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony; factors are flexible)
- Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1985) (recognition that asbestos products vary widely in toxicity)