Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Origin and Outcome of an Amicus Brief in Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999)

The Origin and Outcome of an Amicus Brief in Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999) Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 The Origin and Outcome of an Amicus Brief in Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999) Neil Vidmar In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) the defendant/petitioner (Kumho) and amici for the defendant made assertions that juries have known tendencies to be improperly influenced by expert evidence. I and 17 colleagues who had knowledge of the jury research literature signed an amicus brief on the side of the plaintiff/respondent setting forth an opinion that the assertions were not supported by the bulk of empirical studies on jury behavior. We did so as independent professionals, not as representatives of an official organi- zation, such as AP/LS. This introduction reports the origin and development of our brief, its legal status, and its uncertain impact on the case. Kumho arose out of a products liability case resulting from a 1988 minivan acci- dent in Alabama that resulted in the death of one member of the Carmichael family and the injury of seven others. The Carmichael family sued the manufacturer of the tires in a Federal Court diversity case with claims involving the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, negligence/wantonness, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

The Origin and Outcome of an Amicus Brief in Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999)

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 24 (4): 4 – Aug 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/the-origin-and-outcome-of-an-amicus-brief-in-kumho-tire-v-carmichael-TtiNcw9KuN

References (5)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1005522328315
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 The Origin and Outcome of an Amicus Brief in Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999) Neil Vidmar In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) the defendant/petitioner (Kumho) and amici for the defendant made assertions that juries have known tendencies to be improperly influenced by expert evidence. I and 17 colleagues who had knowledge of the jury research literature signed an amicus brief on the side of the plaintiff/respondent setting forth an opinion that the assertions were not supported by the bulk of empirical studies on jury behavior. We did so as independent professionals, not as representatives of an official organi- zation, such as AP/LS. This introduction reports the origin and development of our brief, its legal status, and its uncertain impact on the case. Kumho arose out of a products liability case resulting from a 1988 minivan acci- dent in Alabama that resulted in the death of one member of the Carmichael family and the injury of seven others. The Carmichael family sued the manufacturer of the tires in a Federal Court diversity case with claims involving the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, negligence/wantonness,

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Aug 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.