Opinion ID: 2172313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony for which there was an inadequate foundation?

Text: Appellants urge that the court erred by permitting Flake and Daniel D. Smith to give their opinion as to structural alterations. We find no merit in this claim. Flake was the owner of the property. He was also a general contractor. He had a degree in Business Administration and had taken pre-engineering courses, including graphics, welding and physics. Since 1963 he had built some 100 Gibsons buildings of which 30 to 35 were similar to the present one. Daniel D. Smith had a two year degree in Architectural Drafting, and had an Associate Science Degree. In 1980 he graduated from Kansas State University with a five year degree in Bachelors of Architectural. He teaches two courses of architecture at the University. He worked for Flake as an architectural draftsman and manager. He had extensive experience in building construction. We find the foundation was sufficient for their opinions and that their testimony goes to weight rather than to admissibility.