Risk characterization and the weight of evidence: Adapting gatekeeping concepts from the courts

Risk Analysis

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 793-799

  Walker, Vern R ^a  

^a HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence; law; Risk characterization; risk communication; weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MANAGEMENT; RISKS;

COURTS; GATEKEEPING CONCEPT; RISK CHARACTERIZATION; RISK MANAGEMENT; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE DETERMINATION;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; COURT; EXPERT WITNESS; LAW SUIT; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0030483022     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00830.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. F. H. Habicht II, Deputy Administrator, EPA Memorandum Concerning Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors (Feb. 26, 1992); reprinted as Appendix B in National Research Council, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994).
2. F. H. Habicht II, Deputy Administrator, EPA Memorandum Concerning Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors (Feb. 26, 1992); reprinted as Appendix B in National Research Council, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994).
3. National Research Council, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994).
4. C. M. Browner, EPA Administrator, EPA Memorandum Concerning EPA Risk Characterization Program (March 21, 1995).
5. EPA, "Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment," Federal Register 61, 17,960-18,011 (April 23, 1996).
6. National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996).
7. Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, Draft Report (June 13, 1996).
8. H. Latin, "Good Science, Bad Regulation, and Toxic Risk Assessment," Yale Journal on Regulation 5, 89-148 (1988).
9. Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1994).
10. Federal Rule of Evidence 401, 28 U.S.C.A. (1995). 10 Federal Rule of Evidence 402, 28 U.S.C.A. (1995).
11. Federal Rule of Evidence 602 & Note of Advisory Committee, 28 U.S.C.A. (1995).
12. J. W. Strong (ed.), McCormick on Evidence (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1992), 1, § 10; 2, §§ 340, 341.
13. Federal Rules of Evidence 801-806, 28 U S C.A. (1995).
14. Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 28 U.S.C.A. (1995): "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
15. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
16. Federal Rule of Evidence 703, 28 U.S C.A. (1995).
17. J. B. Weinstein, M. A. Berger, and J. M McLaughlin, Weinstein's Evidence (Matthew Bender & Co., New York, 1995), 1, ¶ 301[02]; 3, ¶ 703[03].
18. "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 611 F.Supp. 1223, 1241, 1246-48, 1250-55 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd. 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied sub nom Lombardi v. Dow Chemical Co., 487 U.S. 1234 (1988).
19. DeLuca by DeLuca v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc , 791 F.Supp. 1042, 1058-59 (D.N J. 1992), aff'd, 6 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 691 (1994).
20. Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 28 U.S.C.A. (1995).
21. United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1152-54 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 946 (1995).
22. Armstead v. State, 673 A.2d 221 (Md. 1996).
23. State v. Bloom, 516 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. 1994).
24. Commonwealth v. Crews, 640 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1994).
25. F. James, Jr., G. C. Hazard, Jr., and J. Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure, 4th Ed. (1992), §§ 7.13, 7.14, 7.17, 7.19.
26. Brock v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 311-15, modified, 884 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1511 (1990). Compare the controversy in Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 902 F.2d 362, 367 (5th Cir. 1990) (refusing to "extend Brock"), superseded on rehearing, 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc), cert denied, 503 U.S. 912 (1992).
27. DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 957-59 (3d Cir. 1990).
28. L. A. Bailey, L. Gordis, and M. Green, "Reference Guide on Epidemiology," Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1994), pp. 121-180.
29. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1320-22 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 189 (1995) (taking relative risk into account in considering admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702).
30. California Evidence Code § 641 (1995).
31. Federal Rule of Evidence 301, 28 U.S.C.A. (1995).
32. California Evidence Code § 605 & Law Revision Commission Comment (1995). The Law Revision Commission Comment states: "Only the needs of public policy can justify the direction of a particular assumption that is not warranted by the application of probability and common experience to the known facts"
33. California Evidence Code § 667 (1995) (5 years).
34. California Evidence Code § 665 (1995).
35. Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO, v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 652-59 (1980).
36. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 548 F.2d 998, 1004, 1012-18 (D.C Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nom Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. EPA, 431 U.S. 925 (1977).
37. Sheehan v Sullivan, 126 Cal. 189, 58 Pac. 543, 544 (1899).
38. J. E. Hickey, Jr and V. R. Walker, "Refining the Precautionary Principle in International Environmental Law," Virginia Environmental Law Journal 14, 423-454 (1995).