When is an expert witness required

This reliability requirement is designed to draw a distinction between testimony which is purely speculative and testimony that is based on tested methods and techniques that produce reliable results. The Colorado Supreme Court has enumerated several factors courts should look to in determining reliability in Estate of Ford v.

Lastly, the testimony must have some usefulness to the jury. This is a relatively low bar and as long as the expert testimony makes a fact at issue in the case more or less probable, or will help the jury to understand a fact at issue, this requirement will likely be satisfied. One reason parties should determine early on in a case if expert testimony will be necessary is that there are different disclosure requirements during discovery for expert witnesses and lay witnesses.

During discovery, for lay witnesses, only their names and the general topics they are expected to testify to need to be disclosed. In contrast, expert witnesses much more rigorous disclosures, including a description in detail of what they will be testifying to and what opinions they will be rendering at trial. Under the rule, there are two types of expert witnesses:. The distinction can be confusing but, in general, if an expert is specifically hired to review and give an opinion on the facts of the case then that witness is a retained expert.

In contrast, if an expert is going to be subpoenaed or called to testify based on factual events they witnessed first-hand or their actual involvement in the underlying claim, such as treating physicians for a personal injury case, then that witness is a non-retained expert.

See Goodman v. For retained experts , C. Notably, correct disclosure of expert witnesses is critical in the progression of a case, especially for retained experts since their testimony is limited to what is disclosed in the expert report. Moreover, if a witness is not disclosed as an expert at all she will not be allowed to give expert testimony which can be highly damaging and usually dispositive for a case where expert testimony is necessary to establish or defend against liability.

Search for:. This general rule admits exceptions, but few would argue that the inference is unreasonable. And the relation between these facts rests on a general principle regarding when daylight begins and ends, as does the relation between most facts. The relation between certain facts, however, can be inscrutable. The lack of an apparent lexicon of guiding principles renders us unable to relate these facts to one another. After all, the correct application of reason requires an understanding both of facts and of general logical principles underlying those facts.

Therefore, the system must exert great care in ensuring that its jurors can correctly apply reason. Having moved past first principles, we must find an authoritative guideline for what facts and logical principles require an expert to explain. While jurisdictions vary, most view the federal rules whether for civil procedure or for evidence as persuasive guidance.

Multiple sources agree. A word of caution here is that most experts fail to do what lawyers hire them to do: make the complicated, simple. While expert witnesses, lawyers, and even commentators believe that jurors use bias to evaluate expert testimony, jurors tend to respond to experts who have stellar credentials, draw firm conclusions, and give clear concise explanations of complex situations.

Given the foregoing history of the jury trial, the limitations we all have in our knowledge, and the need for simple answers to complex questions, experts serve a vital role in the legal system. The existence of a duty is a matter of law, decided solely by the judge.

But, the standard of care whether the individual in question fulfilled this duty is a matter of fact. Matters of fact are for the jury to decide. But a layperson is without the specialized knowledge to evaluate what constitutes reasonable conduct from owners, doctors, manufacturers, or any myriad of individuals operating in different occupational capacities.

Unigard Ins. Group v. Brooke Cal. Therefore, an expert in each respective field turns complicated facts into simple opinions that a juror may analyze. However, attorneys often overlook expert testimony for damages which can make or break the entire case.

Experts are necessary to prove several facets of damages:. At bottom, damages are about showing how this money compensates for this injury. For example, the average person is ignorant of how to monetarily compensate a knee injury that requires a lifetime of maintenance and care. The life care plan , in conjunction with the vocational assessment and economist report, allows a juror to understand these facts and link money to the injury.

Apart from you needing an expert, you need to retain an expert earlier rather than later. Early retention ensures that you can properly vet your expert and familiarize yourself with their process and their analysis of your case.

Litigation and discovery costs despite rumors to the contrary tend to be proportionate to the money at stake. Of course, the high cost of expert testimony is nothing new in fact, sources from over a decade ago cited expert testimony as a key cost to control in litigation.

And sources predict that expert costs will continue to rise. Nearly half of experts have raised or are planning to raise their rates as of The average hourly fee rate jumped 7. However, the greatest uptick in the trend comes from early costs retainers and the increasing amount and requirement of a retainer rather than the hourly rates experts charge. The First Circuit noted while the line is sometimes difficult to draw between expert and lay person opinion testimony, it was not difficult in the case at bar.

They stated further,. Simple arithmetic, such as ordinary multiplication, is a paradigmatic example of the type of everyday activity that goes on in the normal course of human existence. One does not need a graduate degree in chemistry to master multiplication: in this country, that subject is universally taught in elementary schools.

In Thornton v. Garcini, M. Toni Thornton gave birth on August 20, She was attended by nurses, and the baby was in a breech position. The child became stuck, with his body out of the vagina, and the head inside the vagina.

The infant died while in this position. The hospital contacted the on-call Doctor, who instructed the nurses not to attempt to remove the infant, for fear the action might decapitate the child. Plaintiff testified about her distress, remaining with the infant protruding from her vagina for over an hour before the Doctor arrived and removed the deceased child.

After a jury award, Dr. The Supreme Court of Illinois did not agree. Instead, they noted that while the existence of medical testimony, or lack thereof goes to the weight of the evidence, it does not prevent the plaintiff from presenting the issue to the jury.

Rather, the jury could find, based on personal experience and knowledge alone, the circumstances caused the plaintiff emotional distress. Defendant further argued an expert was necessary in this case, because the distress felt may have been from her physical situation, or it may have been due to the death of her child.

It would be unfair, the defendant argued, to allow recovery for the death of the child.