What is the test for admitting expert testimony at trial?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Sengbusch v. Priest, 1987 CanLII 2796 (BC SC):
In Kelliher v. Smith, 1931 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1931] S.C.R. 672 at 684, [1931] 4 D.L.R. 102 [Sask.], Lamont J., speaking for the majority, quoted Beven on Negligence, 4th ed., at p. 141, as follows: “To justify the admission of expert testimony two elements must coexist: “(1) The subject-matter of the inquiry must be such that ordinary people are unlikely to form a correct judgment about it if unassisted by persons with special knowledge. “(2) The witness offering expert evidence must have gained his special knowledge by a course of study or previous habit which secures his habitual familiarity with the matter in hand.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is a trial judge bound to comment upon all the evidence at trial to support an expert testimony? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an applicant and respondent at a summary trial rely on expert reports, examinations for discovery, interrogatories, use of admissions, and expert reports? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the relevant relevance and effect factor for admitting expert evidence at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for admitting expert opinion at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law or case law that supports the argument that a trial judge has a duty to make a decision based on expert testimony? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a summary trial judge make a finding that a matter is not suitable for disposition by way of summary trial during the hearing of the summary trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for an application to reopen a personal injury trial after the close of trial has been argued and reply begun? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party to a medical malpractice action be required to give an expert opinion on matters directly connected with the issues raised at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will the Court consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to find that a summary trial is appropriate to consider the issues before deciding whether to proceed with a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the expectation of lengthy medical testimony and actuarial evidence about loss of future earnings constitute sufficient grounds to deny a trial by jury? (British Columbia, Canada)
