Court Opinion

ID: 9853338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:46:53.346554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:46.005612
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
concurring. That portion of syllabus ¶ 1 which categorically states that an expert witness may not state his *446opinion concerning what acts of the parties contributed to an accident is overbroad. K.S.A. 60-456 in pertinent part provides:
“(b) If the witness is testifying as an expert, testimony of the witness in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions as the judge finds are (1) based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the witness at the hearing and (2) within the scope of the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness.
“(d) Testimony in the form of opinions or inferences otherwise admissible under this article is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue or issues to be decided by the trier of the fact.”
An expert when qualified may give an opinion based on both perception and facts otherwise made known to him at the hearing. Subsection (d) specifically says that if such opinions are otherwise admissible they are not objectionable because they embrace the ultimate issues to be decided by the trier of fact.
However, it was not error to exclude the expert’s proffered testimony in this case because the trial judge properly determined the opinion was not within the scope of the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness.