Smith v. Grief & Harry's Transport, Inc.
106 A.3d 1050
| Del. | 2015Background
- Marie Smith appealed the Superior Court's denial of her motion in limine to exclude biomechanical expert testimony offered by defendants Harry Grief and Harry’s Transportation, Inc.
- Smith alleged cervical and upper-extremity injuries from an automobile accident; both sides retained medical experts, and defendants retained biomechanical engineer Dr. Sandra Metzler.
- Dr. Metzler opined the crash produced ~1.7 g horizontal acceleration and that those forces were not consistent with causing Smith’s reported neck and upper-extremity conditions.
- The Superior Court held a Daubert/D.R.E. 702 hearing, found Dr. Metzler qualified, that her opinions were reliable and sufficiently connected to the particular facts (considering plaintiff’s medical records, body measurements, pregnancy, vehicle, and position), and denied the motion.
- The case proceeded to trial and the jury awarded Smith $48,000; Smith appealed the admissibility ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility dependency on medical corroboration | Smith: biomechanical opinions must be supported/corroborated by medical testimony (except narrow impeachment exception) | Defendants: biomechanical testimony can be admissible without physician corroboration if reliable and connected to facts | Court: Rejected Smith’s categorical rule; admissibility depends on reliability and case-specific connection, not required medical corroboration |
| Reliability under Daubert / D.R.E. 702 | Smith: Dr. Metzler’s methods/opinions unreliable and should be excluded | Defendants: Dr. Metzler’s qualifications, calculations, and individualized analysis satisfy D.R.E. 702 | Court: Affirmed trial court — Dr. Metzler was qualified and her opinion was relevant, reliable, and properly connected to the particular facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Eskin v. Cardin, 842 A.2d 1222 (Del. 2004) (biomechanical opinion admissible only if it reliably connects general human-body reaction to accident forces with the specific individual or determinative fact)
- Mason v. Rizzi, 89 A.3d 32 (Del. 2014) (expert biomechanical opinion must be sufficiently reliable and relevant under case facts; medical corroboration not always required)
- Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006) (articulating D.R.E. 702 factors)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (framework for assessing expert reliability and admissibility)