Not a claim that an expert is lying, and not some magic motion that automatically blows up the other side's case. A Daubert challenge is an attack on whether an expert's opinion is reliable enough to be heard by the judge or jury at all. The point is not "this witness is bad." The point is "this method, testing, reasoning, or fit to the facts is too shaky to count as real expert evidence."

Courts use a Daubert challenge to screen out dressed-up guesswork. That matters because injury cases often rise or fall on experts: engineers, doctors, accident reconstructionists, metallurgists, and other specialists. In a product liability case, one side may say a machine guard failed, a tire separated, or a design defect caused a rollover. If the expert cannot show solid methods, testing, peer review, error rates, or a reliable application of the facts, the opinion can be limited or tossed.

In Wyoming, courts follow Daubert principles under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 702, and the Wyoming Supreme Court adopted that framework in Bunting v. Jamieson (1999). A successful challenge can gut causation, undercut damages, or force a weak case into settlement. In a state where brutal wind on I-80 or I-25 can muddy what caused a crash, separating real science from courtroom theater can decide the whole fight.