daubert put the responsibility of the admissibility of evidence on judges.
where does daubert put the responsibility of the admissibility of evidence?
judges
hedonic damages, the loss of the value of life, are allowed in almost every state in a non-fatal injury case. based on "william daubert et al. v. merrell dow pharmaceuticals, inc.", and other admissibility tests, many but not all jurisdictions allow economic expert witness testimony on hedonic damages. for example, the nevada supreme court unanimously approved of such testimony in "banks v. sunrise hospital", 120 nev. 822, 102 p.3d 52 (2004). similarly, the 4th appellate district in ohio allowed such testimony based on daubert in lewis v. alfa leval,128 ohio app.3d.200 (1998). the court of appeals in the lewis case held that the trial judge properly ruled that the testimony met the daubert standards, and that it was within the discretion of the trial court to have admitted hedonic damages testimony. the measurement of hedonic damages is based on some 40 years of extensive, well-accepted, peer-reviewed, economic research on the value of a statistical life (vsl). this measurement is controversial among forensic economists. the value of statistical life literature is accepted by most forensic economists, including those economists few who oppose the admission of hedonic damages testimony. many courts nationwide have allowed such testimony but judges have significant discretion as to its admissibility. economists generally agree that the vsl is in the $4 million to $5 million range. this value is an average of many published results based on economic research using the willingness-to-pay model(wtp). hedonic damages are not allowed in death cases in the great majority of the states. some states do allow recovery in wrongful death cases, including new hampshire, new mexico, georgia, arkansas, connecticut, hawaii, and in federal section 1983 civil rights violation actions.
hedonic damages
daubert standard





























in united states federal law, the daubert" standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. a party may raise a daubert" motion, a special motion "in limine" raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. the "daubert" trilogy are the three united states supreme court cases that articulated the daubert standard:
daubert standard