Just when you thought that the litigation between W. C. English and RKK had no more to give (after all, there have been posts with wisdom from this case here, here, and here), it keeps on giving. A relatively recent opinion from this litigation involved, among other pre-trial motions, motions by English to exclude expert witness testimony. English sought to exclude Defendant CDM Smith, Inc’s expert testimony relating to CDM’s standard of care, the replacement of the bridge deck, English’s failure to fire CDM, and additional contributing factors regarding the spacing of the reinforcing steel. English sought to exclude RKK’s expert opinion regarding English’s owed standard of care vis a vis VDOT.
In evaluating these motions, the Court applied the following standard:
An expert qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify “as to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge if it will assist the trier of fact. However, such testimony is only admissible if (1) “the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,” (2) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,” and (3) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” [citations excluded here but stated in the opinion]
In applying this standard, the Court partially granted the motion to exclude CDM’s expert. The Court found that the expert’s experience was adequate and his opinion met the three-part test above as to the first of his opinions on standard of care. However, the Court excluded the last three opinions for various reasons from lack of helpfulness to the jury to simply reading documents and providing his legal conclusion. The Court excluded RKK’s expert from testifying because he would simply be providing his interpretation of certain specific parts of the factual record and such interpretation is generally the province of the jury.
This opinion provides a good overview of some of the expert witness issues that can arise in a commercial construction matter. Construction professionals and their attorneys here in Virginia should review this case as well as those it cites when evaluating the usefulness of certain expert opinions in presenting their claims in litigation. I highly recommend the opinion to your reading.
I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts. Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.
