Answer:
The correct answer is C:
Kumho Tire Co. Ltd V. Daubert
Explanation:
In this case, the appellant (Daubert) has sued Kumho Tire Co. Ltd (the defendant) when 3 months prior the right rear tyre of his car exploded while the car was in motion killing a passenger and injuring others severely.
The appellant employed the services of an expert who had worked for 10 years with Michelin to give his opinion as having studied the attributes of the tire technology.
In a counter-argument, the defendant rather than dispute the opinion of the expert urged the court to exclude it as evidence because his methodology didn't conform to the requirements of the Law as given in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
True to the defendants' position, the Law by the ruling in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals required that for the opinion to count, it had to be scientifically correct. It was hence excluded as evidence in the case.
Cheers!
