In Barabin v. AstenJohnson, where Barabin sued for damage suffered from exposure to asbestos, the appeals court held that the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witnesses was not legally permissible evidence because:
A) the expert witness's testimony did not meet the Daubert reliability standard
B) the plaintiff failed to fill out the expert witness testimony forms
C) the expert witness for the plaintiff refused to give a deposition as requested by defendant
D) the expert witness was not from the United States, so could not qualify
E) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court in Barabin v. AstenJohnson held that the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witnesses was not admissible because it did not meet the Daubert reliability standard. This standard requires that expert testimony be based on scientific methodology and be reliable and relevant to the case at hand. Because the court determined that the plaintiff's expert witnesses did not meet this standard, their testimony was not legally permissible evidence.

In Barabin V