Jackson does not have asbestos-related expertise reasonably follows from his own admission that he had observed heat strips in only a limited number of radios, had not tested their composition, and had no special knowledge or expertise in identifying materials containing asbestos or critiquing tests of such materials.”Īfter rejecting this evidence, the court ruled that in absence of any connection between an asbestos containing product in a radio and decedent’s exposure: “Similarly, here, appellants’ evidence would require the trier of fact to speculate that at some point, decedent repaired a Zenith radio model that might have contained asbestos paper as a heat shield. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 2034.210(b) defines experts as parties. Despite the general proscription against opinions, lay witnesses are allowed to give a variety of opinions. Jackson’s credentials to express expert opinion about asbestos, not about radio collection or repair. expert witnesses all other parties intend to have testify at trial. The court also affirmed the lower court rejection of a purported expert on radios and tubes because the expert did not possess the proper qualifications regarding asbestos: “The court was clearly concerned about Dr. Regardless of his experience, a lay witness may not testify about scientific tests that require expert opinion.” Improper Expert Testimony (or improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individuals special knowledge, skill, experience. (a) Witnesses subpoenaed for any deposition or hearing are entitled to the following fees and mileage, payable in advance: (1) Witness fee for each days actual attendance of thirty-five dollars (35) (2) Mileage actually traveled, both ways, of twenty cents (.20) a mile (b) A party who subpoenas a peace. The documentary evidence they submitted in support of the opposition indicates that the presence of asbestos in materials is determined through testing. Appellants have cited no authority for the proposition that asbestos content in materials may be identified by sight and touch alone, or that such identification is a matter of common knowledge and experience. ) According to Savic, ‘fibrous shields, insulators and barriers made of cardboard, duroid, nomex’ and other materials that did not contain asbestos were used in Zenith products. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the rejection of lay witness testimony as to asbestos content: “As a lay witness, Darby could testify to his observations about the texture of the material, but not to his conclusion that it contained asbestos since a lay witness may not opine about matters not within common knowledge or experience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |