The real problem is the standard of proof and admissibility in civil cases.
In every jurisdiction I know of, in negligence cases an expert can provide
an opinion if his opinion is based upon a reasonable degree of certainty
*or* probability in his field. That means that if something is more likely
than not, defined as 50.00...001% likely, an expert can express an opinion
as to causation. Remember that the state must prove a criminal defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and/or to a moral certainty. Some civil
causes of action require clear and convincing evidence before a plaintiff
prevails.

I think there is a little more mass to the Lincoln Memorial on the back of a
penny than to Lincoln's head. Thus an expert can express an opinion to a
reasonable degree of mathematical certainty or probability that a flipped
penny will land on heads. Now anyone who knows anything about flipping
pennies knows that's nonsense -- one can't tell how a coin will land on the
next flip -- but this guy can swear to it before a jury. Add a little grey
hair to a good resume, and a plaintiff can walk away with a lot of money
with nothing but fluff for evidence on causation.

It's hard to blame the plaintiff. How can you really fault her for making a
claim? She is only asking that a jury compensate her for someone else's
fault. If she can't prove it, she loses the case. If her lawyer can't
prove it, he loses money and time. We need to focus on the reason why so
much silly, careless and irresponsible conduct results in big jury awards.
I submit that in part, the reason is due to an unreasonably low standard of
proof in civil cases.

For the legal-minded, yes Daubert helped (albeit on a slightly different
point), but doesn't apply to every forum and doesn't go far enough.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
Denny wrote:
I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...
Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...