The Frye standard, adopted in Frye v. US, 1923, by the US Supreme Court established that expert evidence is admissible if the methods used by the experts are generally accepted within the scientific community. However, in Daubert v. Merrell, 1993, it was held that the court required a multipart test to determine the reliability of expert evidence.
After Daubert, federal courts adopted the new standards for expert evidence, as also a number of states like Arizona and Wisconsin. However, Florida remained with Frye. This opened up the state to a type of litigation tourism in which expert evidence that was inadmissible elsewhere under the Daubert standard could be admitted for litigation.
Lawmakers believe that H.B. 7015, which became law on Wednesday, would ensure a fairer system and also ensure the reduction of unnecessary legal actions.
Opponents of the law, however, hold that when there are two camps of scientific community accepting almost opposite methods to approach the same problem, it ultimately leads to deciding of acceptable scientific approaches by a jury of laymen. The decision on accepting expert evidence may not always be on who is more scientific, but on what appeals more to laymen.
So, for many lawyers, adopting the Daubert system would only increase the time and money spent on litigation as multiple hearings in each relevant case could be over qualification of expert evidence.
Thomas Bishop, the legislative chairman of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar Association said, "if litigants are forced to expend a lot more time and money than necessary to get to the courtroom, that's bad for everybody."
However, the feelings of the supporters of the law were summed up by David Hart, the executive vice-president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, saying, "This is an important step forward in improving Florida's legal climate and making our state more competitive."
