Opinion ID: 2229545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Plaintiff Sustained His Burden of Proof on Issue of Causation.

Text: Defendant finally argues that plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof on the issue of the causal relationship between the accident and the injuries for which he seeks recovery. Plaintiff called a medical doctor as an expert witness. The doctor testified that in his opinion the accident was the cause of the injuries for which plaintiff sought recovery. Defendant's medical expert testified to the contrary. The weight and credibility of expert testimony, however, is generally for the jury. E. g., State v. McCabe, 251 Minn. 212, 87 N.W.2d 360 (1957). The rule which governs this issue is stated in Freeman v. Matson, 230 Minn. 261, 271, 41 N.W.2d 249, 255 (1950), as follows:    In the field of medical science, it is apparent that there will be a difference of opinion. Where the opinions of reputable doctors have a reasonable basis on the facts, it must be left to the trier of facts to say who is right when other doctors have conflicting opinions. In this case, the jury chose to believe plaintiff's expert. So long as his opinion has a reasonable basis in fact, the decision of the jury is not open to review on appeal. Affirmed.