The Epistemological Role of Expert Witnesses and Toxic Torts

Browne, M. Neil; Keeley, Terri J.; Hiers, Wesley

doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.1998.tb01016.x

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Monologic or univocal epistemologies seek to place a blanket over social diversity, heteroglossia and the polyphony 23 of different viewpoints (Shields, 1996, p. 283 (Browne, Keeley & Hiers, 1998).…”

Section: Epistemology and The Role Of 'Experts'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach

Bebbington

Brown

Frame

et al. 2007

Accounting, Auditing &Amp; Accountability Journal

321

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Epistemology and The Role Of 'Experts'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach

Bebbington

Brown

Frame

et al. 2007

Accounting, Auditing &Amp; Accountability Journal

321

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A problem with such superlatives of disaster is the degree to which expert advice about body–environment links is admissible in court (Browne et al 1998). The notorious United States Supreme Court judgement of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993) added in this respect a filter that has significantly influenced the law of torts in that country, with implications further afield (Edmond and Mercer 2004).…”

Section: The Body–environment Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic torts: arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and the legal geographies of responsibility

Atkins¹,

Hassan

Dunn³

2006

Trans Inst British Geog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1475-5661.2006.00209.x Publisher's copyright statement:The denitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

“…Currently, a variety of scientific, medical, and legal commentators endorse the use of court-appointed experts to assist judges and juries make better-informed decisions (Angell, 1996; Browne et al, 1998; Holden, 1998;“Improving Judicial Gatekeeping,” 1997; MacAbee, 1995; Mark, 1999; Reisinger, 1998; Shuman & Sales, 1999; Thorpe et al, 2000). In the breast implant litigation, the contributions of Judge Jones's technical advisors and Judge Pointer's science panel were largely responsible for eliminating junk science from these cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 By characterizing the trial court as a "gatekeeper," Daubert abandoned Frye's traditional deference to the "expert community" on questions of scientific reliability. Daubert mandates that judges themselves must determine the relevance and reliability of the expert testimony (Browne, Keeley, & Hiers, 1998) by assessing the methodological foundation of the testimony and whether it has been reliably applied to the facts at issue. In setting this standard, the Supreme Court essentially "adopted standard scientific methodology and applied it to the legal arena" (Price & Rosenberg, 1998, p. 1429.…”

Section: Effect Of Daubert Daubert and Judicial Gatekeepingmentioning

confidence: 99%