Opinion ID: 2112113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court improperly permitted expert testimony.

Text: Gerlachs claim the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted Greg Haiar, Coop's manager (who was deposed prior to trial) to give expert testimony. Specifically, Gerlachs assert that Haiar testified as an expert witness in violation of a pretrial order excluding expert testimony. During the discovery phase of the trial, Coop was served interrogatories requesting information concerning any expert witness it intended to introduce at trial. Coop answered that no decision had been made regarding experts. Six weeks before trial, Gerlachs again requested this information, and Coop replied that it did not intend to call an expert witness on the issues of liability or damages. Gerlachs moved for an order precluding Coop from introducing such testimony. This motion was granted. The question before this court is: In what capacity did Haiar testify? Was he an expert witness or a lay witness? Haiar is the manager of Coop and began this employment shortly before Gerlachs' building collapsed. He testified that Coop constructs approximately thirty to forty pole barns each year. In the course of his previous employment, Haiar had several opportunities to participate in the construction of pole barns. Gerlachs find the following testimony by Haiar at trial to be objectionable: Q: [by Mr. Kouri] One of the big things we have been talking about here have been these lap joints? A: [by Mr. Haiar] Yes. Q: Based on your experience with the Co-op and the construction of pole buildings, are you aware of any such building with lap joints being constructed in this part of the country? Objection by Ms. Brunick and bench discussion.
A: Yes. Gerlachs argue that the foregoing testimony sets forth Gerlachs' expert opinion as to the custom and standard in the area regarding the use of lapped joints in the construction of hog confinement buildings thus violating the motion in limine prohibiting expert testimony. However, as we stated in State v. Bittner, 359 N.W.2d 121 (S.D.1984), a lay witness may give an opinion if he has personal knowledge of the matter. SDCL 19 15-1; [1] SDCL 19-14-2. [2] Nonexpert testimony... requires no foundation and ... a nonexpert may testify regarding his or her opinions or inferences which are based on perceptions and which facilitate a clear understanding of the testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. State v. No Heart, 353 N.W.2d 43, 48 (S.D.1984); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Dace, 305 N.W.2d 50, 56 (S.D.1981). Clearly, Haiar had personal knowledge of the local use of lapped joints in the construction of hog confinement buildings. Moreover, it was Gerlachs' expert who put this fact in issue when he stated that he had never seen a building in South Dakota that was sixty feet wide and built with lapped joints. As the manager of a Coop which builds thirty to forty pole barns each year, coupled with the experience of his prior employment, Haiar's testimony was certainly admissible. Bittner, supra; No Heart, supra; United States Fire, supra . We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Haiar's testimony. State v. Wimberly, 467 N.W.2d 499 (S.D.1991); No Heart, supra ; Ewing v. Russell, 81 S.D. 563, 137 N.W.2d 892 (1965). We have considered Gerlachs' other claims of error and find them to be without merit. Affirmed. WUEST, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs with writing.