# Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson

> Kentucky Supreme Court · February 24, 2000 · 11 S.W.3d 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701352

## Case

- **Full name:** The GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Appellant, v. Dennis THOMPSON and Cigna Insurance Company, Appellees
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 24, 2000
- **Citations:** 11 S.W.3d 575; 2000 Ky. LEXIS 20; 2000 WL 217646
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Stumbo
- **Judges:** Johnstone, Cooper, Keller, Wintersheimer, Stumbo, Lambert, Graves
- **Cited by:** 475 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701352

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the standard to reviewing a trial court's ruling admitting or excluding evidence is abuse of discretion, and the test is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles
- holding that a trial court may use a Daubert analysis to evaluate the reliability of any type of expert testimony, when doing so would be helpful to such a determination
- noting that abuse of discretion is the standard of review for a trial court’s evidentiary rulings and that the same standard applies to KRE 702
- discussing the relevant factors that go into an admissibility determination under Daubert

## Opinion text

STUMBO, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that part of the majority opinion which adopts the Kumho Tire decision and thereby applies the Daubert analysis to the testimony of engineers and other “non-scientific” expert witnesses. However, I believe that Hahn’s proposed testimony satisfied Daubert’s requirements of reliability and relevance and that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his testimony. I therefore join the dissent to the extent that it objects to the exclusion of Hahn’s testimony.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701352. Public record. Not legal advice.