In the product liability case of Tunnell v. Ford Motor Co., 330 F. Supp. 2d 707 (W.D. Va. 2004), the admissibility and reliability of survey evidence presented by a Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness were central to the court’s analysis. The case involved allegations regarding the safety and consumer expectations of Ford vehicles, specifically focusing on battery disconnects and related product features.
Background and Parties
Plaintiff Tunnell brought suit against Ford Motor Company, asserting that certain design features failed to meet reasonable consumer expectations and posed safety risks. To substantiate these claims, Tunnell retained survey experts Pamela Kiecker and Marjorie Adams to conduct consumer expectation surveys. The surveys were intended to provide direct evidence of how typical consumers perceived the safety and functionality of the product at issue.
Role and Methods of the Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness
Adams and Kiecker, both recognized as qualified survey experts, designed and administered surveys targeting relevant consumer populations. Their methodology included drafting survey instruments, selecting appropriate samples, and analyzing responses to determine prevailing consumer expectations regarding battery disconnects. Notably, Adams consulted with Tunnell’s counsel to ensure the survey’s relevance and accuracy, using a draft information piece provided by counsel as the basis for the final survey background material. The court acknowledged that such attorney involvement in survey design is generally accepted practice, provided the attorney does not participate in conducting the survey and the survey itself remains objective and relevant[1].
Court’s Reliability and Daubert Analysis
The court’s analysis of the admissibility of the survey expert testimony was guided by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, as well as the Daubert standard for expert reliability[1][3]. The court reiterated that survey evidence is independently admissible at trial if there is a substantial showing of reliability. Specifically, the court cited the standard that a survey must be “conducted in accordance with generally accepted survey principles” and its results “used in a statistically correct manner.” Factors considered in assessing reliability included the clarity of survey questions, the qualifications of interviewers, and the objectivity of the survey process.
The court scrutinized the surveys conducted by Adams and Kiecker, ultimately finding that the surveys were unfairly skewed in favor of the plaintiff. The court determined that the wording of the survey questions introduced bias, which could not be remedied by cross-examination alone. As a result, the court declined to adopt the portion of the report addressing the testimony of Adams and Kiecker, finding it clearly erroneous[1].
However, the court emphasized that the facts and data underlying a consumer expectation survey do not need to be independently admissible at trial, provided the methodology is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. The court cited the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which notes that some attorney involvement in survey design is necessary to ensure relevant questions are directed to a relevant population. The trier of fact is tasked with evaluating the objectivity and relevance of the survey questions and the appropriateness of the sample selection[1].
Impact of Expert Testimony on Case Outcome
The exclusion of the survey evidence provided by Adams and Kiecker significantly impacted the plaintiff’s ability to establish consumer expectations as direct evidence. The court’s decision underscored the importance of unbiased survey design and rigorous adherence to accepted principles in public opinion and survey research. The court’s analysis serves as a clear reminder that expert testimony based on survey research must meet stringent standards of reliability and objectivity to be admissible and persuasive in federal litigation.
In summary, the Tunnell case provides a definitive example of how courts evaluate the reliability of Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness testimony, applying established evidentiary standards and emphasizing the necessity for unbiased, methodologically sound survey practices in product liability disputes.