Ayers v. Robinson

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1995 · Evidence

887 F. Supp. 1049 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceexpert testimonyDaubertRule 702Rule 403hedonic damageswillingness-to-payscientific knowledge

Facts

After Lenardo Ayers was shot and killed by a Chicago police officer, his mother sued and planned to offer expert testimony from Professor Stan Smith on hedonic damages. Smith proposed to use a willingness-to-pay methodology to assign a dollar value to the pleasure and satisfaction of life apart from earnings, and would testify that Lenardo's hedonic damages were about $2 million. The opinion examined Smith's published sample testimony and related materials because no case-specific proffer had been tendered. Defendants challenged the testimony as unreliable and misleading under Rules 702 and 403.

Issue

Whether expert testimony valuing Lenardo Ayers's hedonic damages through Smith's willingness-to-pay methodology was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as interpreted by Daubert, and under Rule 403. More specifically, the court asked whether the methodology was scientifically reliable, fit the task before the jury, and would assist rather than mislead the jury.

Rule

Under Rule 702 and Daubert, expert testimony must be grounded in reliable scientific methods and procedures rather than subjective belief or unsupported speculation, and it must fit the case so as to assist the trier of fact. Even relevant expert testimony may be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. Hedonic-damages testimony based on willingness-to-pay methodology is inadmissible where its benchmarks and adjustments are not scientifically reliable, where it values a statistical life rather than the specific individual's life, and where it creates a deceptive appearance of precision.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a wrongful-death trial in federal court in Detroit, plaintiff Elena Ortiz offers economist Martin Keene to testify that the decedent's loss of enjoyment of life was worth $3.8 million. Keene says he reviewed about two dozen published willingness-to-pay studies ranging from $600,000 to $9 million and selected $3.8 million because it seemed to represent the studies' "central tendency" and was "conservative."

Should the court admit Keene's benchmark testimony?

Explanation. The majority held that a benchmark drawn from willingness-to-pay literature by simple "eyeballing" of a wide range is not grounded in reliable scientific methods and procedures. A broad published literature does not itself make the selection reliable, and the court rejected the notion that a supposedly conservative number cures the methodological defect. The testimony therefore fails Rule 702's reliability requirement.