Opinion ID: 1177210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Expert's Negligence Opinion

Text: Following several preliminary questions about the general operating and training practices of OSHA, Stanley Freeman, the state's expert witness, was asked the following question: And I'll ask you, sir, that  keeping in mind all of the professional qualifications that  and learning that you have demonstrated to the jury, do you have an opinion as to whether or not that inspection, based on your knowledge of what occurred, both at the time and afterwards, was negligent conduct on the part of Mr. Tauriainen? Counsel for Wilson and Cooper objected on the ground that the question called for a legal conclusion. The court sustained the objection, excused the jury, and clarified its ruling. Judge Rowland explained that he sustained the objection because the question lacked a standard of care upon which an opinion of negligence could be based. The following exchange resulted from the above ruling: Q. Mr. Freeman, I want you to  I want you to assume for the purposes of my question that Mr. Tauriainen, on the date that he made that inspection, which was, I believe, January 16, 1977, was required to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by an Occupational Safety and Health inspector, employed in the same or similar locality, under similar circumstances, and that it was his duty to use the care and skill ordinarily used in like circumstances by other Occupational Safety and Health inspectors employed in the same or similar locality, under similar circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and his best judgment in the exercise of his professional skills and in the application of his learning, in an effort to accomplish the purpose for which he was employed. Now, having that in mind, and assuming that to be the standard that he had to meet, do you have an opinion as to whether or not he was negligent, Mr. Tauriainen was negligent when he conducted the inspection of January 16, 1975? A. I have an opinion. Q. And what is your opinion, sir? A. Well, there are several  several facets of the.... Q. Just state.... A. .... this opinion. Q. .... your opinion. Do you have an opinion? Was he negligent or not? A. I do not believe he was negligent. Wilson and Cooper claim that this testimony was erroneously admitted because the right of an expert to testify as to the ultimate issue does not authorize him to testify as to legal conclusions such as negligence. [2] The state asserts that predicating the question on a standard of care cured any problems of admissibility. In our opinion, this testimony was clearly admissible under Evidence Rule 704 which states: Opinion on Ultimate Issue. Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. According to the commentary to this Rule, the only limits on admissibility of an expert's opinion on an ultimate issue are that the opinion be helpful to the trier of fact (Evidence Rules 701 and 702), based on facts or data reasonably relied on by other experts (Evidence Rule 703), and not unduly prejudicial or misleading to the jury (Evidence Rule 403). In our opinion, the requirements of Evidence Rules 701, 702 and 703 were satisfied. Further, any problems of confusion or prejudicial effect on the jury were cured by predicating Freeman's opinion on a standard of care and issuing a cautionary instruction. Under these circumstances, it was not error to allow Freeman to state his opinion on Tauriainen's negligence.