Opinion ID: 1743268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Trial Court's Ruling Regarding Wagner's Testimony Was Reversible Error.

Text: With regard to Wagner's testimony, Perry argues that the district court erred in failing to perform its gatekeeping function, refusing to allow Wagner to give expert testimony regarding the cause of the fire, and instructing the jury that it must consider Wagner's testimony as lay testimony rather than as expert testimony. We agree with Perry that on the record in this case, the court should have found Wagner to be an expert. Because the court failed to declare Wagner an expert and thereupon effectively directed the jury to circumscribe the weight to be accorded to Wagner's testimony, the ruling unfairly prejudiced Perry and constituted reversible error. We note first that Perry does not appear to assert that Wagner's opinion relating to the origin and cause of the fire was completely excluded in this case. Instead, Perry's argument is that although Wagner's testimony was admitted, because of the court's comments to the jury, Wagner's testimony was effectively admitted only as lay testimony and the jury instructed to minimize its weight. We therefore consider Perry's claim surrounding the determination that Wagner's testimony was not admitted as expert testimony and the consequence of that determination relative to the fairness of the trial. Four preliminary questions must be answered in order to determine whether testimony is admissible as expert testimony: (1) whether the witness qualifies as an expert pursuant to rule 702; (2) whether the expert's testimony is relevant; (3) whether the expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a controverted factual issue; and (4) whether the expert's testimony, even though relevant and admissible, should be excluded in light of Neb. Evid. R. 403, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995), because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or other considerations. Realty Trust Group, supra . The court in the present case did not fully explain why it did not admit Wagner's testimony as expert testimony. However, because the court admitted the testimony as lay testimony, we can assume that the court found that the testimony was relevant, that it would assist the jury to understand the evidence or determine a controverted factual issue, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or other considerations. We would agree with these assessments. Looking at the context, it is apparent that the court found that Wagner did not qualify as an expert pursuant to rule 702. We disagree with this determination. We have stated that in determining whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert, the court must examine whether the witness is qualified as an expert by his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education. State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16, 33, 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). In the present case, Wagner testified that he had over 30 years' experience investigating fires; that he had received education and training in fire investigation, which included approximately 40 classes offered by the State of Nebraska and by other entities; and that in those classes, he had studied, inter alia, fire investigation procedures pursuant to NFPA 921. Wagner's testimony also established that his investigation was based on NFPA 921, which he and other experts in this case recognized as an accepted approach to conducting fire investigations. We determine that the record reflects that Wagner had sufficient knowledge, skill, training, and experience to establish himself as an expert in fire investigation and was thus qualified to testify as an expert witness on issues regarding fire investigation. See, similarly, Bayse v. Tri-County Feeds, Inc., 189 Neb. 458, 203 N.W.2d 171 (1973) (permitting fire chief to testify as expert regarding origin and cause of fire). With respect to Perry's argument based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), we have stated: If it is necessary for the court to conduct a Daubert analysis, then the court must determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert testimony is scientifically valid and reliable. Mason, 271 Neb. at 33-34, 709 N.W.2d at 653-654. With respect to the underlying reasoning and methodology, Wagner testified that he followed NFPA 921. We note that Wagner and the other experts in this case generally recognized NFPA 921 as setting forth procedures by which a fire investigation is conducted. In this regard, we further note that NFPA 921 has been accepted as a methodology in other cases. See, Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 394 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.2005); Tunnell v. Ford Motor Co., 330 F.Supp.2d 707 (W.D.Va.2004); Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Joseph Daniel Const., 208 F.Supp.2d 423 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Travelers Property & Cas. Corp. v. General Elec., 150 F.Supp.2d 360 (D.Conn.2001). Durable does not appear to have challenged the scientific validity and reliability of the methodology set forth by NFPA 921, nor does anything in the record indicate that such methodology was the reason the court did not admit Wagner's testimony as expert testimony. We have recently observed that Daubert `does not require that courts reinvent the wheel each time that evidence is adduced.' Mason, 271 Neb. at 37, 709 N.W.2d at 656 (quoting Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001)). Based on the foregoing, a Daubert analysis of methodology was not necessary in this case and Perry's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Instead of a Daubert issue, the issue before the court was whether Wagner was qualified as an expert in fire investigation. As noted above, the record demonstrates that Wagner was so qualified. Because Wagner's testimony was admissible as expert testimony, we conclude that the district court erred when it admitted Wagner's testimony only as lay witness opinion. The combination of this ruling and the court's comments to the jury relative to the admission of Wagner's testimony constituted reversible error. To constitute reversible error in a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence must unfairly prejudice a substantial right of a litigant complaining about such evidence admitted or excluded. Big River Constr. Co. v. L & H Properties, 268 Neb. 207, 681 N.W.2d 751 (2004). Because Wagner was allowed to give his opinion, Perry was not harmed in the sense that Wagner's testimony was completely excluded. However, when admitting Wagner's testimony, the court told the jury, So, I'm not necessarily, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, finding he is an expert, but he can testify based on his observations; and that's the weight you give this testimony. By making this statement, the court limited the weight that the jury could give Wagner's testimony by stating that it should be given the weight of testimony based on personal observation but not the weight of expert testimony. We have stated that determining the weight to be given expert testimony is uniquely within the province of the fact finder, and the jury, as the trier of fact, is entitled to determine the weight and credibility to be given to witnesses' testimony. Hausman v. Cowen, 257 Neb. 852, 601 N.W.2d 547 (1999). In this case, Wagner was the first expert to arrive at and evaluate the scene of the fire. The jury, having heard Wagner's testimony regarding his qualifications and the techniques he used to form his opinions, was entitled to determine the weight and credibility it would give to Wagner's testimony. However, by its ruling in this case, the court effectively circumscribed the weight the jury could give Wagner's testimony, and such limitation unfairly prejudiced Perry. Inasmuch as the cause of the fire was a critical issue of fact in this case, such error affected a substantial right of Perry and necessitates a new trial. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to reverse the judgment of the district court and to remand the cause for a new trial.