How some courts are handling Daubert motions to exclude testimony from origin and cause experts. Here an investigator used plain language in describing his investigation. He did not say he followed the scientific method and he tested his hypothesis, he just kept it simple. Because of his method in testifying the court looked at the step by step process he used.

In this decision, the court addressed the methodology used by an investigator and reached a conclusion as to their validity. The expert was not attempting to address a specific defect in the item he said caused the fire but only that the fire originated within this unit. In their decision the court stated, “He examined burn patterns, examined heat, fire, and smoke damage, considered this evidence in light of testimony regarding the fire, and identified a point of origin. He then considered as possible causes of the fire those devices that contained or were connected to a power source and that were located at the identified point of origin. “He eliminated as possible sources those devices that were not in the area of origin or that were not connected to a power source and contained no internal power source. We can find nothing unreliable in this accepted and tested methodology.” In this decision and in the ruling from the lower court 921 was never mentioned. The court ruled that even though this person was not an electrical engineer he could infer why the fire took place. “This distinction does not preclude him from testifying, based on the fire scene, based on evidence of shorting in the PowerChair, and based on the elimination of other possible sources (due to location or lack of power), that he inferred the PowerChair was the cause of the fire.”

Maybe using plain language help the court decide in his favor. Maybe we can all learn something from this ruling.