Here's the objection I would make:

I object to the witness stating a bald conclusion without explaining what data she relied on and what method she used. Without that information, the defense has failed to lay a foundation that the opinion is "reliable" as required by Daubert and Rule 702.


Assume the objection is overruled and the testimony continues:

G: I find it hard to believe that this kind of information could be ascertained simply by looking at a picture.

V: Would you like me to explain?

G: I would love to hear this.

J: So would I.

V: The car that made these two equal length tire marks had positraction, can't make those marks without positraction, which is not available on the 1964 Buick Skylark

G: And why not? What is positraction?

V: It's a limited slip deferential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark had a regular deferential, which anyone who's been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing.

NOTE THAT THE EXPERT IS ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT MAKES HER TESIMONY UNDERSTANDABLE, AS WELL AS STATING HER OPINIONS.

Juror: That's right.

G: Is that it?

V: No, there's more, you see, when the left tire mark goes up on the curb, and the right tire mark stays flat and even, well, the '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle, so when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along its edge, but that didn't happen here, the tire marks stayed flat and even. This car had an independent rear suspension. Now in the 60's there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction and independent rear suspension and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel-base, and wheel-track as the 64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest.

G: And because both cars were made by GM, were both cars available in metallic mint green paint?

V: They were.

G: Thank you Miss Vito, No more questions. Thank you very, very much. You've been a lovely, lovely witness.

Example 2: (expert witness from "The Verdict")

DF ATTY (inquiring into qualifications of Plaintiff's expert): Good morning doctor. Dr. Thompson, just so the jury knows, you never treated Deborah Ann Kay, is that correct?

A: Yes, that's correct. I was engaged to render an opinion.

Q: Engaged to render an opinion, for a price. That is correct, you are being paid to be here?

A: Just as you are sir.

Q: Are you board certified in Anesthesiology?

A: No, I'm not. It's quite common in New York State to practice. . .

Q: Yes, I'm quite sure it is, but this is Massachusetts. Are you board certified in Internal Medicine?

A: No.

Q: Neurology?

A: No.

Q: Orthopedics?

A: No. I'm just an M.D.

Q: Do you know Dr. Robert Towler? [the defendant accused of malpractice]

A: I know of him.

Q: How is that?

A: Through his book.

Q: What book is that?

A: Methodology and Practice in Anesthesiology.

Q: How old are you doctor?

A: I'm seventy-four (74) years old.

Q: Do you still practice a lot of medicine?

A: I'm on the staff of . . . .

Q: Yes, yes, I've heard that, but you do testify quite a bit against other physicians. Isn't that correct? You are available for that so long as you're paid to be there?

A: Sir, yes. So long as a thing is wrong, I am available. I am seventy-four (74) years old, I'm not board certified, I've been practicing medicine for forty-six (46) years and I know when an injustice has been done.


IF THE DEFENSE OBJECTED TO DR. THOMPSON BEING QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, HOW SHOULD THE PLAINTIFF RESPOND?

When you think you know the answer, click here .