Originally from:
Products Liability Depositions - LooseLeaf
Products Liability Depositions - Electronic
Preview Page
Prod.Liab.06 Expert Witnesses
[1]—Generally
Expert witness testimony will frequently be the key evidence
with respect to whether the product in question was in a dangerous
condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. An expert witness is
one whose scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will
assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence.1 In order to
testify as an expert, an individual must have acquired this
specialized knowledge either by formal education or other training
or through on the job experience. Local universities and colleges
provide an excellent source of expert testimony. There are also, of
course, consulting engineering firms, independent laboratories and
other specialty firms available to provide expert witnesses to testify
with regard to specific technical problems. However, experts need
not always be such highly trained professionals; they may be
experienced automobile mechanics, real estate appraisers or
construction supervisors. Considerable thought should be given to
the selection of an expert witness. In many instances, a so-called
“shirtsleeve expert” may be more appropriate and more persuasive
than an expert a more academic witness with a Ph.D. degree.
As an expert witness, an individual is allowed to testify to his
opinion with respect to matters within his expertise.2 Under the Federal
Rules of Evidence an expert witness may express his opinion even if it
deals with one of the ultimate issues in the case, to wit, whether the
product in question was defective.3 It should be noted that the Federal
Rules of Evidence have been a liberalizing factor with respect to the
matters that may be considered by the expert witness in arriving at his
opinion. Prior to the adoption of the FRE, an expert witness was
limited to basing his opinion either upon facts for which he had
personal knowledge or that were presented in evidence at the trial and
put before him by means of a hypothetical question. The proponent
would ask the witness to assume the following facts to be true,
summarize those matters presently in evidence, and request an opinion
based upon those assumed facts. Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence allows an expert to give his opinion upon facts not in
evidence, even upon facts not admissible in evidence, as long as these
facts are of a “type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular
field.” Thus, an expert witness can base his opinion testimony upon
matters of which he has no personal knowledge.
Terrance M. Miller is a Partner with Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur in Columbus Ohio. Mr. Miller has developed a great deal of expertise over the last 35 years in trial and appellate practice involving a broad range of different types of products liability cases and has handled cases in Ohio, California, Texas, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Massachusetts and Vermont. He has successfully tried motor vehicle products liability cases involving such target products as the Suzuki Samurai automobile and the all-terrain vehicles of several manufacturers. He has defended the products of such drug companies as Eli Lily, Hoffman-LaRoche and Hoechst-Marion Roussel, the motor vehicles of Honda, Isuzu, Kawasaki, Yamaha, Suzuki and Harley-Davidson, Kenworth trucks and the trailers of Great Dane.
Robert P. Miller is a graduate of Wittenberg University and the Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law. He is an associate with the law firm of Rourke and Blumenthal, LLP, where he handles a diverse product liability practice. He is a member of American Association for Justice, the Ohio Association for Justice, and the Franklin County Trial Lawyers Association. He is listed as an Ohio Super Lawyer, Rising Star.
