Opinion ID: 2615088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the testimony of appellant's father regarding the treatment of his son

Text: Near the end of the trial, over objection, the district court allowed the following question to and answer from appellant's father: Q: You're not critical of Dr. Pitts or Dr. Thomas' treatment of your boy, are you? A: No, sir. Appellant characterizes his father's testimony as a lay opinion on the issue of the negligence of Drs. Thomas and Pitts, noting that a lay witness may not express an opinion as to matters which are beyond the realm of common experience and which require the skill and knowledge of an expert witness. Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 846 (10th Cir.1979). Under NRS 50.265, a lay opinion is admissible only when the opinion is both rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. As respondents point out, Mr. Beattie's testimony could just as easily be characterized as an expression of his personal feelings about his son's treatment. Moreover, the district court cured any possible prejudice by instructing the jury to consider only expert testimony when determining the standard of professional learning, skill, and care required of the doctors. Given this curative instruction, and in the context of a three-week trial amassing twenty volumes of record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on the basis of two words of testimony.