Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the application of Texas substantive law and Delaware procedural and evidentiary law in a toxic-exposure tort action involving alleged birth defects. The court held that the plaintiffs waived arguments for applying California or Delaware substantive law. It remanded for the Superior Court to determine whether the proposed expert testimony was reliable under Delaware law before addressing whether Texas substantive evidentiary-sufficiency standards could affect admissibility.

Holdings

1. Texas substantive tort law governs the plaintiffs' claims because the plaintiffs waived their arguments that California or Delaware substantive law should apply.
2. Delaware procedural law, including Delaware evidentiary law, governs the admissibility of expert testimony.
3. Expert testimony is admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 only if it is both relevant and reliable.
4. The case must be remanded for the Superior Court to determine in the first instance whether the expert testimony is unreliable under Delaware law before the Supreme Court decides whether substantive-law sufficiency may be incorporated into the relevance analysis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Texas or another state's substantive law governed the plaintiffs' tort claims.
2. Whether Delaware procedural and evidentiary law governed the admissibility of expert testimony.
3. Whether the Superior Court properly excluded the expert testimony as irrelevant based on its insufficiency under Texas substantive law.
4. Whether the expert testimony should first be evaluated for reliability under Delaware law before the Supreme Court addressed whether substantive evidentiary sufficiency may be considered as part of relevance.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded