## Facts

- John and Eileen Schafersman operated a commercial dairy in Washington County, Nebraska.
- They purchased commercial-grade oats from Agland Coop for use in their dairy feed ration.
- Agland delivered 3,260 pounds of product into the Schafersmans’ grinder-mixer, where it was mixed with other ingredients and fed to the herd.
- The oats were contaminated with “Envirolean 2.5L Swine Concentrate,” a hog premix containing minerals, vitamins, and micronutrients.
- After the feed was distributed, the Schafersmans reported illness and deaths in the herd and claimed related economic losses (including lost milk production and lost cows).
- At trial, the Schafersmans’ veterinarian expert, Dr. Wallace Wass, attributed the harm to “multiple mineral toxicity,” asserting that several minerals at individually sub-toxic levels combined to cause toxicity.
- Wass conceded his theory was largely observational and not supported by controlled scientific studies; the defense expert testified the theory was not generally accepted and that the mineral levels should not have been toxic to cattle.
- A jury awarded the Schafersmans $120,000; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert causation testimony based on an insufficiently supported “multiple mineral toxicity” theory.
2. Whether Nebraska should evaluate scientific expert testimony using Frye’s “general acceptance” test or a Daubert-style reliability framework implemented through Nebraska’s evidence rules.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Wass’s “multiple mineral toxicity” opinion without an adequate reliability foundation.
- The court held Nebraska’s approach to scientific expert testimony should reflect Daubert and its progeny rather than being guided exclusively by Frye.
- The case was remanded with directions to reverse the district court judgment and to order a new trial, because the error was prejudicial to causation.

## Legal Principles

- Scientific expert testimony is admissible only if the proponent establishes a reliable foundation for the theory or technique and for its application to the case facts.
- Trial courts must serve as gatekeepers to ensure expert testimony is both relevant and reliable under Nebraska’s evidence rules, including Rule 702.
- Reliability is a flexible, case-specific inquiry; relevant considerations include testability, peer review/publication, known or potential error rate, and acceptance within the pertinent scientific community.
- An expert’s unsupported assertion (ipse dixit) does not substitute for a reliable methodology and adequate foundational showing.
- Appellate review of a trial court’s expert-admissibility ruling is for abuse of discretion; failure to perform the gatekeeping function, where prejudicial, requires a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court ordered a new trial after concluding that the plaintiffs’ causation expert relied on an unvalidated and inadequately supported “multiple mineral toxicity” theory, and it directed Nebraska courts to apply a Daubert-style reliability analysis—through the Nebraska Rules of Evidence—when screening scientific expert testimony.


Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. 2001)