Opinion ID: 2147018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Murray Provided Sufficient Foundation for Her Opinion

Text: Mercantile contends that Murray based her testimony on a `best guess scenario' and that she lacked knowledge of the Neighborhood. [18] Mercantile's objection appears to be a foundational challenge, and that is how we will address it. A court should not admit expert testimony if it appears the witness does not possess facts that will enable him or her to express an accurate conclusion, as distinguished from a mere guess or conjecture. [19] That is, a court should reject an expert's opinion if the record does not support a finding that the expert had a sufficient foundation for his or her opinion. [20] We discussed an evidentiary foundation issue in Scurlocke v. Hansen. [21] There, the witness testified regarding the cost to restore trees damaged by a bulldozer. He, however, had no experience estimating such damages, he estimated the cost to restore the property to its original condition without having seen it before the damage, he took no measurements, and his methodology consisted of walking around the [plaintiff's] property and trying to `visualize' where trees had been prior [to the damage]. [22] We decided the skeletal foundation could not support his opinion. In contrast, Murray fleshed out the foundation for her opinion. She relied on her research of the city. She examined felonious assaults and automobile thefts occurring in the city and the number of liquor-serving establishments. She used census data to control for other variables, including income, racial composition, and land ownership at the block level. She testified that based on her research of a citywide trend, crime would increase in the Neighborhood with the establishment of an additional liquor store. Murray also testified the Neighborhood already averaged more crime per year than other areas, suggesting that an increase in crime there could be more detrimental. Mercantile attempts to characterize Murray's testimony as mere guess or conjecture [23] under Scurlocke because she testified that her opinion regarding the effect of a liquor store in the Neighborhood was her best-guess. The record reveals, however, that Murray clarified that any opinion about future events has some uncertainty, and repeated that she based her opinion on her research. We believe this case is distinguishable from Scurlocke. Murray's background and research provided sufficient foundation for her opinion. The hearing officer did not clearly err in admitting Murray's testimony.