Opinion ID: 2823238
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Contested Testimony

Text: After Mr. O’Connor’s extensive summary of the Property’s environmental history, counsel for Ferris asked him to opine as to whether the hazardous substances that VHB found on Parcel A in 2005, specifically TCA and PCE, were present at the time of the real estate closing in 2003. Huhtamaki objected to this line of questioning, arguing that Mr. O’Connor did not have the requisite scientific expertise to render such an opinion. Huhtamaki was opposed to allowing Mr. O’Connor to testify as to this point undoubtedly because one of the elements which Ferris was required to prove at trial was whether the hazardous substances or materials found in 2005 were present on the Property at the time of the closing in 2003. After a voir dire examination of Mr. O’Connor was conducted, the trial justice concluded that the witness would be permitted to testify that the materials found in 2005 were also present in 2003. However, the trial justice - 11 - further ruled that Mr. O’Connor would not be permitted to offer an opinion as to exactly when the contaminates were first discharged onto Parcel A. Mr. O’Connor then offered his expert opinion that the hazardous substances (TCA and PCE) which VHB found in 2005 were present on Parcel A in 2003. He explained that he based his opinion on: (1) the fact that the 1986 DEM Complaint, the 1989 Preliminary Assessment by DEM, the 1990 Szepatowski Report, and the 1993 Weston Report all documented the use of TCA and PCE at the facility; (2) the fact that the Weston, ICEE, and Paragon reports all documented the presence of TCA and PCE in the soil and groundwater samples from Parcel A; (3) the fact that VHB was remediating the same general area of the Property as had been examined by Weston, ICEE, and Paragon; and (4) the fact that VHB found the contaminated soils underneath ten feet of clean soil.