In Barabin v. AstenJohnson, where Barabin sued for damage suffered from exposure to asbestos, the appeals court held that:
A) the expert for plaintiff Barabin failed to meet the standard of reliability, so there would be a new trial
B) the expert for plaintiff Barabin failed to meet the standard of reliability, so it reversed the judgment to be in favor of AstenJohnson
C) the expert witness for Barabin failed to meet the standard for reliability, so that testimony would be stricken from the record but the judgment would stand
D) the expert witness for AstenJohnson could not be a company employee, it had to be an independent expert
E) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that the expert for plaintiff Barabin failed to meet the standard of reliability, necessitating a new trial. This decision was based on the failure to properly apply the Daubert standard, which is a guideline for the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony.

In Barabin V