Court Opinion

ID: 9765617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:10:33.330083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:11.494176
License: Public Domain

BLACKWELL, Judge,
concurring fully and specially.
I concur fully in the majority opinion, but I write separately to explain why we do not scrutinize more carefully the methodology that the appraisal expert in this case used. In the majority opinion, we say that, because there is no evidence that the expert testimony about valuation was speculative, “we will not second-guess [the expert’s] methodology.” And that is appropriate in this case, I think, because no one filed a motion to exclude the testimony of this expert, no one objected at the hearing to his testimony on valuation, and no one moved to strike his testimony on valuation. Instead, after the expert testified about the value of the property without objection,1 Boring simply argued that the expert testimony was insufficient to establish value because the methodology of the expert was, according to Boring, flawed. Accordingly, only the sufficiency of the evidence *98adduced at the confirmation hearing — not the admissibility of that evidence — was preserved for our review on appeal. In these circumstances, and because the confirmation statute specifies no particular means for appraising the true market value of the property at issue, I think that we correctly refrain from second-guessing the methodology used by the appraisal expert.
Decided November 24, 2010.
George E. Butler II, for appellants.
But when objection is timely and properly made to the admissibility of expert testimony in a civil action under OCGA § 24-9-67.1, second-guessing the methodology of the expert is precisely what the trial court is supposed to do. Enacted as part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005, OCGA § 24-9-67.1 permits a trial court to admit expert testimony in a civil case only when the testimony “will assist the trier of fact in any cause of action to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” and only to the extent that “[t]he testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods” and “[t]he witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (b). When objection is timely and properly made to the testimony of an expert witness, the trial court must function as a gatekeeper, see Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group, 285 Ga. 667, 671 (681 SE2d 152) (2009), and the trial court must scrutinize the methodology used by the expert and determine whether it is scientifically valid and, therefore, reliable before admitting the expert testimony. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579, 592-593 (113 SC 2786, 125 LE2d 469) (1993).2
Nothing in our decision today should be understood as a retreat from our obligation to ensure that the trial courts fulfill their role as a gatekeeper. And nothing in our decision today should be construed as a holding that the ordinary standards for the admissibility of expert testimony in civil cases do not apply to appraisal experts or in confirmation proceedings. Because the admissibility of the expert testimony in this case was not preserved for our review, we are not required to, and we do not, address such things.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Smith joins in this opinion.
*99Quirk & Quirk, Kathryn E. Baird, Brendan H. Parnell, Richard J. Dreger, Kenneth P. Robin, for appellee.

 Boring did object once on hearsay grounds when the expert was explaining his methodology and relating discussions that he had with certain public officials, and the trial court overruled the objection. This objection, however, did not pertain to the testimony about valuation — which the expert already had given without objection — and it is not, therefore, material to our assessment of whether the evidence of valuation was sufficient to sustain the confirmation of the sale.

 We look to Daubert and its progeny in construing OCGA § 24-9-67.1. See OCGA § 24-9-67.1 (f); Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., 283 Ga. 271, 279 (5) (658 SE2d 603) (2008).