finding that expert testimony should have been stricken because the support for the testimony was conjectural, inadmissible hearsay, and of a type not reasonably relied 21 upon by experts in the field
How later courts described this case
- finding that expert testimony should have been stricken because the support for the testimony was conjectural, inadmissible hearsay, and of a type not reasonably relied 21 upon by experts in the field
- finding party estopped from denying existence of easement where party knew of its existence, its use by the other party, and benefitted therefrom
- noting that “[t]o the extent that a party acts to enhance its own business interests, it has a privilege to act in a way that may harm the business expectancy of others”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE LUND, specially concurring:
I concur with the majority opinion, but am somewhat concerned there may be a misunderstanding regarding use of surveys when giving expert opinions. Federal Rule of Evidence 703 (Rule 703) (Fed. R. Evid. 703) and Federal Rule of Evidence 705 (Rule 705) (Fed. R. Evid. 705) apply to all types of cases, not only those arising from medical malpractice. I envision fact situations where the opinions authorized under Rule 703 could be based upon survey evidence. That may be true even in the present case on retrial. If the survey questions have been carefully prepared to obtain responses which indicate information that could be relied upon in forming an expert opinion, and the survey was taken in a reasonable manner, then the survey result may well be a foundation for an expert’s opinion.
In the present case, I envision such a survey to be a written inquiry to customers, asking reasons why the purchase of a new garage was made from the contractor. If the answers from a fair sample of past customers indicate purchases were made because of familiarity with garages recently constructed by the same contractor, then the information may well be the type reasonably relied upon in forming expert opinions or drawing inferences.
Normally, after an expert says the source is the type reasonably relied upon, the objecting party seeks to impeach during cross-examination. (See Rule 705.) In the present case, the issue was brought to the attention of the court, by a hearsay objection during the opinion testimony, when the witness mentioned his opinion was based upon undescribed surveys. Nothing in the testimony indicates there could be reasonable reliance on the surveys in forming an expert opinion. The record is also void of evidence indicating how the surveys were taken.
Public-opinion surveys determine marketing plans for many businesses in the modem economy. As long as these surveys are taken with a reasonable degree of scientific care, they may well be a valid basis for expert opinions and inferences.