Court Opinion

ID: 9602205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:52:28.755045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:01.483672
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, but for the reasons stated by this court in Marshall v. Martinson, 268 Or 46, 518 P2d 1312 (1974), as cited by the majority (291 Or at 531). In that case this court held, as in this case, that the objection to the testimony by the expert witness was properly sustained, but upon the ground that:
<¡* * * uncjer facts of this case the trial judge could properly find that there were so many varying factors involved in the problem presented by this question that the opinion of an expert witness in answer to that question would indeed have been ‘speculative,’ * * 268 Or at 56.
In my opinion, even if the diagram referred to by the majority had been in evidence, the opinion of the expert witness was too “speculative” to be admissible.