Opinion ID: 901893
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dr. Schroeder's testimony regarding undisclosed underlying information.

Text: [¶ 22.] Master Blaster also alleges that Dr. Robert Schroeder's testimony included previously undisclosed underlying information. Master Blaster suggests that statements about Dr. Schroeder's research and experiments concerning the pyrolysis theory of ignition were improperly allowed. Further, Master Blaster alleges that Dr. Schroeder's telephone conversation with Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas on the Saturday before trial was inadmissible hearsay evidence. [¶ 23.] Essentially, Master Blaster's arguments question the basis of Dr. Schroeder's opinion. The basis of an expert's opinion is generally a matter going to the weight of the testimony rather than the admissibility. See First Western Bank Wall v. Olsen, 2001 SD 16, 621 N.W.2d 611. Similarly, some of Master Blaster's concerns raised on this issue are more appropriately considered with the scientific validity of pyrolysis, discussed as Issue 4, below. For the purposes of this section, we examine the testimony as a matter of evidence. [¶ 24.] Experts are entitled to rely upon hearsay in forming their opinions when it is the type of information upon which experts in the particular field routinely rely. SDCL 19-15-3. [8] We cannot agree with Master Blaster that a telephone conversation with a leading expert in the field is not of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. Master Blaster's hearsay arguments are without merit. Master Blaster's argument suggests that an expert cannot review their work before their trial appearance by discussing their conclusions with colleagues in the field. We cannot accept such a suggestion.