Obtained reversal from the Texas Supreme Court of a $14 million products liability judgment arising out of a fire because the plaintiffs’ expert’s causation testimony was scientifically unreliable. The Court held that both Texas tests for reliability -- the “analytical gap” test and the Robinson-factor test -- typically should be used in evaluating expert testimony, and that an expert must offer a convincing explanation for failing to test critical aspects of his theories when such testing is possible. The Court rendered a take-nothing judgment for our client.
Whirlpool v Camacho 298 SW3d 631 Tex 2009
Participating Lawyers
