Key Takeaway
New York court ruling in Kohler v Barker explores the boundaries of expert witness testimony and how far attorneys can push expert opinions in personal injury cases.
Expert witness testimony plays a crucial role in personal injury litigation, often serving as the bridge between complex technical concepts and jury understanding. However, the line between legitimate expert analysis and inadmissible speculation can sometimes blur, particularly when attorneys attempt to maximize the impact of their hired experts. A recent New York appellate decision provides valuable insight into how courts evaluate the admissibility and scope of expert testimony, especially when one party challenges whether an expert has overstepped professional boundaries.
The case highlights the ongoing tension in litigation between zealous advocacy and the evidentiary rules that govern what experts can and cannot tell a jury. Understanding these boundaries is essential for both attorneys and clients involved in personal injury cases where technical or professional expertise is needed to establish liability or damages.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Kohler v Barker, 2017 NY Slip Op 01344 (2d Dept. 2017)
“The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial court (see Price v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 553, 558; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 847; Galasso v 400 Exec. Blvd., LLC, 101 AD3d 677, 678). Generally, expert opinion is proper when it would help clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror (see De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307; Matter of Islam v Lee, 115 AD3d 952, 953). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the testimony of the defendants’ expert. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the testimony of the defendants’ expert was based on facts in the record and his own analysis, not speculation”
This is another expert witness case. Worth seeing how far you can push the envelope with the hired witness.
Key Takeaway
The Second Department reaffirmed that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. The key distinction lies in whether the expert’s opinions are grounded in factual evidence and professional analysis rather than mere speculation. This case demonstrates that aggressive use of expert witnesses can be successful when their testimony remains tethered to the factual record.
