observing that an expert witness who opined as to proximate cause “did not understand the legal meaning of the term. His opinions would have been more useful to the jury had they been confined to the issue of causation-in-fact.”
How later courts described this case
- observing that an expert witness who opined as to proximate cause “did not understand the legal meaning of the term. His opinions would have been more useful to the jury had they been confined to the issue of causation-in-fact.”
- stating that expert opinion “is properly received so long as it is not a mere guess or conjecture”
- stating that absolute certainty is not required in expert testimony
- “An expert witness opinion must be based on fact or adequate data. It is properly received so long as it is not a mere guess or conjecture. While absolute certainty is not required, opinion evidence that is conjectural or speculative is not permitted.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
I concur in the judgment of the court only.