finding fire marshal not qualified to testify on origin of gas explosion because he had no formal instruction or on-the-job training concerning that issue
How later courts described this case
- finding fire marshal not qualified to testify on origin of gas explosion because he had no formal instruction or on-the-job training concerning that issue
- In action for negligence in the installation of gasoline tanks, trial court properly ruled that trooper, who had no formal instruction or on-the-job training in the origin of gas explosions, could not testify as an expert notwithstanding the trooper’s qualifications as a fire marshal.
- witness who had no formal instruction or on-the-job training in origin of gas explosions was not qualified as expert, notwithstanding qualifications as fire marshall
- witness who had no formal instruction or on-the-job training in origin of gas explosions not qualified as expert, notwithstanding qualifications as fire marshall
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge, concurring:
I agree that it was within the trial judge's discretion to sustain the objection to the trooper testifying as an expert. I regret, however, the majority's repetition of the test, that to qualify as an expert, "the witness must have a reasonable *479 pretension to specialized knowledge." Majority opinion at 926. I stated what I regard to be the proper test in a concurring opinion in Ragan v. Steen, 229 Pa.Super. 515, 528 , 331 A.2d 724, 736 (1974). A "pretension" is a statement of doubtful truth or value, and while I suppose it does no great harm to continue to say that someone may be an expert if he has a pretension to knowledge, it seems a pity; at any rate, it is of no help to the bench or bar, especially when McCormick and Wigmore have stated the test so much better.