Opinion ID: 2614372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Cross-Examination of Defendant's Expert Witness

Text: Thomas C. Shields, a construction engineer presented by defendant as an expert witness, testified on direct examination that in his opinion the stairway conformed to standard engineering practice in the city of Pasadena. On cross-examination plaintiff's counsel asked whether he limited his answers to standard engineering practice in Pasadena, to which the witness replied No, volunteering that: That would also be [true] anywhere in the world, so far as I am concerned. The witness was then asked, over objection, whether the stairway would conform to proper practice in all of Los Angeles, to which he replied, Yes. On further cross-examination counsel interrogated him on his familiarity with the Los Angeles Building Code and the witness read from the code certain provisions dealing with the requirement of handrails. Defendant contends that facts concerning the building code were irrelevant to the present inquiry, that they were not brought out on direct examination, and that it was therefore improper to permit this course of cross-examination. Plaintiff contends that when the witness voluntarily stated that in his expert opinion the stairway conformed to standard engineering practice everywhere in the world including Los Angeles, plaintiff could test his credibility by showing that this statement could not possibly be true. [9] Although the cross-examination of a witness should ordinarily be confined to matters that have been testified to by the witness on direct examination, latitude is permitted to test accuracy or credibility ( Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 120 Cal. App.2d 685, 691 [262 P.2d 95]; Wigmore, Evidence, § 1006; McCormick, Evidence, § 22), and the trial court is given a wide discretion in controlling cross-examination affecting the knowledge and credibility of an expert witness. ( Laguna Salada, etc. School Dist. v. Pacific Development Co., 119 Cal. App.2d 470 [259 P.2d 498].) [10] In the present case defendant's witness offered his expert opinion as to the safe construction of the stairway anywhere in the world. The trial court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to inquire into the basis for this opinion nor to counter the effect of the witness's broad statement by attempting to show that it was not correct. ( Cf. People v. Westek, 31 Cal.2d 469, 476 [190 P.2d 9].)