Vermett v. Fred Christen & Sons Co.8/25/2000
lants. Appellants' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. In ruling on appellants' motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that William Murray was not qualified to render any expert testimony in this matter because he did not possess the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education required by Ohio law.
Accordingly, we must first review the trial court's decision to exclude Murray's testimony. The decision of the trial court will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Calderon v. Sharkey (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 218, syllabus; Vinvi v. Ceraolo (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 640, 646. Thereafter, we will review the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
a. Murray's Qualification as an Expert
Evid.R. 702 sets forth when a witness may testify as an expert:
"A witness may testify as an expert if all of the following apply:
"(A) The witness' testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons;
"(B) The witness is qualified as an expert by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the subject matter of the testimony;
"(C) The witness' testimony is based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information. *"
First, however, the trial court must make a determination concerning the proposed individual's qualification(s) to testify as an expert witness. Scott v. Yates (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 219, 221.
To qualify as an expert, the witness need not be the best witness on the subject, but must demonstrate some knowledge on the particular subject superior to that possessed by the trier of fact. Id. "The qualification of an expert depends upon the expert's possession of special knowledge that he or she has acquired either by study of recognized authorities on the subject or by practical experience that he or she can impart to the trier of fact." In the matter of: John B. (May 8, 1998), Lucas App. No. L-97-1165, unreported, citing, Ishler v. Miller (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 447, 453-54. Neither special education nor certification is necessary to confer expert status upon a witness. State v. Baston (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 418, 423; citing, State v. Boston (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 119. In fact, a witness can qualify as an expert, even if not a specialist in a particular area of a field of expertise so long as he or she is familiar with the field of expertise. Vistein v. Keeney (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 92, 99.
We agree with the trial court that Murray lacked specialized knowledge in press brake operation and safeguarding and, therefore, is not qualified to render expert testimony regarding Wysong's failure to provide point of operation safeguarding or adequate warnings. See Evid.R. 702. Murray never received formal training regarding press brakes and, while on the job, although he observed others, he never operated press brakes and never dealt with safeguarding of press brakes. Murray's knowledge regarding press brake safety and point of operation guarding was obtained while working as a safety consultant at the consulting firm of Gary Robinson, Inc. ("GRI"), where he worked since 1993. In that capacity, he attended several seminars covering general industrial machine safety, wherein press brake safety was touched upon; however, he was not given any materials on the subject. Murray also did limited research on industry standards for press brakes and press brake guards for Gary Robinson at GRI, who was giving expert testimony in two other press brake cases. However, he "didn't do an awful lot of work" on either case. Prior to t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|