In Alabama, the Daubert admissibility criteria is only applied to “scientific” experts and evidence. Ala. R. Evid. 702(b); Mazda Motor Corp. v. Hurst, 261 So. 3d 167 (Ala. 2017). Otherwise, “[i]f technical [or] other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Ala. R. Evid. 702(a).

Also received the following:
We apply Daubert, in part, through Rule 702 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence. Subsection (b) details cases where the Daubert standard does not apply. The Daubert standard does not apply to domestic relations cases, child-support cases, juvenile cases or cases in the probate courts, and in criminal actions, the Daubert standard applies “only to non-juvenile felony proceedings.” In short, Daubert applies to scientific experts.

Alabama’s change was done through statute and not case law. However, here is a recent case that we often use to establish Alabama’s interpretation of the Rules of Evidence regarding expert opinion. Mazda Motor Corp. v. Hurst, 261 So. 3d 167 (Ala. 2017).

Amendments to § 12-21-160, Ala. Code (1975), and Rule 702 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence adopt a Daubert-based admissibility standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Alabama Legislature acted first when it passed Act No. 2011-629 which amended § 12-21-160, Ala. Code (1975). Thereafter, on November 29, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court amended Rule 702 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to make the evidence rule “consistent” with § 12-21-160. Both amendments became effective January 1, 2012.

The current rule is as follows:

Rule 702.Testimony by Experts
(a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

(b) In addition to the requirements in section (a), expert testimony based on a scientific theory, principle, methodology, or procedure is admissible only if:
(1) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
The provisions of this section (b) shall apply to all civil state-court actions commenced on or after January 1, 2012. In criminal actions, this section shall apply only to non-juvenile felony proceedings in which the defendant was arrested on the charge or charges that are the subject of the proceedings on or after January 1, 2012. The provisions of this section (b) shall not apply to domestic-relations cases, child-support cases, juvenile cases, or cases in the probate court. Even, however, in the cases and proceedings in which this section (b) does not apply, expert testimony relating to DNA analysis shall continue to be admissible under Ala. Code. 1975, § 36-18-30.

(c) Nothing in this rule is intended to modify, supersede, or amend any provisions of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987 or the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1996, or any judicial interpretation of those acts.