When it comes to personal injury cases, expert testimony often plays a critical role in establishing liability and damages. Judges rely heavily on this testimony to guide their decisions, making the reliability of the methods and findings used by experts paramount. In the United States, two primary standards govern the admissibility of expert testimony: the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. Both frameworks impact how evidence is presented and challenged, with significant implications for personal injury litigation. This article explores the differences between these standards and their influence on personal injury cases.

Understanding the Frye Standard

The Frye Standard, originating from the 1923 case Frye v. United States, focuses on whether an expert's methodology is "generally accepted" within the relevant scientific community. This approach emphasizes consensus among professionals, requiring that the principles behind the expert's testimony are widely endorsed by experts in the field.

Key Characteristics of the Frye Standard:

1. General Acceptance Test: Evidence must be based on methodologies that are broadly accepted within the relevant scientific discipline.
2. Limited Scope: The standard does not require the court to scrutinize the specifics of the methodology; it simply ensures that the scientific community accepts it.

The Frye Standard is often considered more rigid and less flexible, as it excludes novel or cutting-edge scientific techniques that have not yet achieved widespread acceptance. As of 2025, fewer states adhere strictly to the Frye Standard, with notable examples including California, Illinois, and New York.

Understanding the Daubert Standard

The Daubert Standard emerged from the landmark 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This standard grants judges the role of "gatekeepers," requiring them to assess not only whether the methodology is accepted but also whether it is reliable and relevant to the case at hand.

Key Characteristics of the Daubert Standard:

1. Judicial Gatekeeping: Judges evaluate the validity of the methodology and its application.
2. Flexibility: Newer scientific techniques may be admissible if they meet reliability and relevance criteria.
3. Four-Part Test: Courts use a multi-faceted analysis, considering factors such as:
   • Whether the methodology has been tested.
   • Whether it has been subject to peer review.
   • The known error rate of the technique.
   • Whether the methodology is generally accepted within the scientific community.

The Daubert Standard is used in federal courts and has been adopted by most states, including Florida, Texas, and Massachusetts.

Comparing the Two Standards: Frye vs. Daubert

The Frye Standard and the Daubert Standard take distinctly different approaches to determining the admissibility of expert testimony, each with unique implications for personal injury cases. While the Frye Standard prioritizes the general acceptance of an expert’s methodology within the relevant scientific community, the Daubert Standard goes a step further, requiring that the methodology not only be generally accepted but also meet stringent criteria for reliability and relevance.

In terms of flexibility, the Frye Standard is more rigid, often excluding novel or cutting-edge scientific techniques until they achieve widespread acceptance. By contrast, the Daubert Standard is more adaptable, allowing newer methodologies to be considered if they pass judicial scrutiny for reliability and validity.

The decision-making authority also differs. Under Frye, the determination of admissibility is largely based on whether the scientific community as a whole endorses the methodology, leaving judges with less discretion. In the Daubert Standard, however, judges take on the role of "gatekeepers," critically evaluating the methodology, its application, and its scientific basis.

When it comes to application, Frye is limited to a handful of states, including California and New York, and offers a more traditional approach to expert testimony. The Daubert Standard, on the other hand, has been adopted by federal courts and the majority of states, including Florida and Massachusetts, due to its focus on modern scientific rigor and legal relevance.

By understanding these distinctions, attorneys can better prepare their expert witnesses and ensure that their methodologies align with the specific standard governing their case.

Impact on Personal Injury Cases

The choice of standard can significantly affect the outcome of personal injury cases. Expert testimony often includes medical opinions, accident reconstruction, psychological evaluations, and economic projections. Here's how each standard impacts these cases:

Under the Frye Standard:

• Challenges for Novel Evidence: Cutting-edge medical or scientific techniques may be excluded if they have not yet gained widespread acceptance.
• Predictable Outcomes: Attorneys can rely on established methodologies, reducing the risk of unpredictable rulings.

Under the Daubert Standard:

• Room for Innovation: Experts can present new or less conventional methods, provided they meet reliability criteria.
• Greater Scrutiny: Judges may exclude evidence that lacks robust scientific backing, even if it is widely accepted.

For instance, in a personal injury case involving traumatic brain injury (TBI), an expert might use advanced imaging techniques like Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). Under Frye, this testimony could be excluded if the technique hasn't achieved general acceptance. However, under Daubert, the court could admit the testimony if it meets the reliability and relevance criteria.

Conclusion

The Daubert and Frye standards play a pivotal role in shaping how expert testimony is admitted in personal injury cases. While the Frye Standard emphasizes consensus and tradition, the Daubert Standard prioritizes scientific rigor and judicial oversight. Attorneys must navigate these standards carefully, as they can greatly impact the admissibility of evidence and, ultimately, the outcome of a case. 

Need Legal Help? Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law is One Phone Call Away

Navigating Personal Injury Claims can be challenging. Fortunately, you don't need to do it alone. The experienced lawyers at Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, are available 24/7 to help you understand your legal options, gather necessary evidence, and build a strong case to secure the settlement you deserve.

Contact us now for a free legal review.