After the issue appeared to be in jeopardy, the Senate on Friday approved a business-backed bill that would tighten standards for expert witnesses in lawsuits.
The bill, HB 7015, would lead to Florida adopting the same standards that federal courts use in deciding whether expert testimony will be admitted. Business groups have long complained that the state's current standard allows "junk science" to be presented to juries, but the bill has been fought by prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce, which has heavily lobbied for the bill, said in a statement after the Senate vote that changing the standards would help create a more "business- friendly legal environment."
"The expert evidence standard that Florida currently uses has a one-size-fits-all approach," said David Hart, the chamber's executive vice president. "Unfortunately, this has a negative impact on our legal climate and puts us at an economic disadvantage with our neighboring states, who we compete directly with for jobs and new business."
Opponents, including the Florida Justice Association trial lawyers' group, argue that the new standards would increase litigation costs and create obstacles to pursuing cases against deep-pocketed companies. Sen. Maria Sachs (D-Delray Beach) said Friday the bill would restrict the ability of plaintiffs to have "their day in court in front of a jury."
"Let the facts go before a jury of our peers, and let them decide the merits of a case,'' said Sachs, who was one of the dissenters in a 30-9 vote.
House members also approved the bill last week, though it will have to back to the House for another vote because of a tweak made by the Senate. The tweak did not change the key part of the bill that would shift to different standards.
Though the issue is somewhat esoteric, expert-witness testimony can be critical in complex civil and criminal cases. Business groups also have pursued legislation in the past to try to tighten the standards but were unsuccessful.
It appeared that this year's attempt also could fail, as the Senate Rules Committee voted 8-7 to approve an amendment that made a substantial change to the Senate version of the bill — a change that was unacceptable to the bill's supporters. But as the full Senate took up the House version this week, it reversed course and supported the shift in standards.
The bill would move the state to what are known in legal circles as the "Daubert" standards, which include a three-part test in determining whether expert testimony can be admitted. That test involves whether the testimony is "based upon sufficient facts or data"; whether it is the "product of reliable principles and methods"; and whether a witness has "applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."
That is more restrictive than the current standard, known as the "Frye" test. That standard, at least in part, requires judges
to determine whether an expert's testimony is based on scientific principle or discovery that has gained "general acceptance" in the particular scientific field.