In relevant part, the testimony was as follows: The plaintiffs argued that the trial court failed to consider (on hearsay grounds) deposition testimony of Toyota Canada’s general counsel regarding one of the meetings he attended. And while Ford acknowledged attending several meetings with other manufacturers because of this shared challenge, Ford asserted that “no joint action was ever taken as a result of those meetings.” Id. Ford’s conduct, it argued, was just as consistent with lawful competition as it was with an unlawful conspiracy. In Ford’s motion, it presented evidence that it had been combating these “gray market” exports for years. Id. at 132.Īt issue on appeal was whether the plaintiffs had presented any admissible evidence that there was at least a triable issue of fact as to whether Ford had participated in an illegal agreement to restrict the export of cars from Canada to the U.S. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence of an actual agreement among Ford and the other manufacturers to restrict the import of new vehicles from Canada to the United States. After years of litigation, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants in the case-Ford Motor Company (Ford U.S.) and its subsidiary, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd. The result of this alleged conspiracy was keeping new car prices in California higher than they would be in a competitive market. The plaintiffs alleged the manufacturers and associations conspired to keep lower-priced (yet virtually identical) new cars from being exported from Canada to the United States. In Automobile, certain purchasers of new cars in California sued a number of car manufacturers and dealer associations under the Cartright Act. Lay Opinion Testimony versus Expert Opinion TestimonyĪn illustrative analysis of lay opinion analysis can be found in In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II, 1 Cal. For this reason, we must distinguish lay opinion testimony from expert opinion testimony. Similarly, California Evidence Code section 702 states that “… the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter….” But this rule is “ubject to Section 801,” which discusses the admissibility of expert opinion testimony.Īs a threshold matter then, expert witness testimony is unique from other witness testimony in that:īut this does not mean that only experts can offer opinion evidence. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 602 provides:Ī witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. But this need for personal knowledge has carved out exceptions for expert witness testimony. Specifically, there must be a showing that the witness perceived the traffic light as opposed to someone telling the witness that the traffic light was green. Before a percipient witness can testify that the “light was green,” there must be a showing that the witness has personal knowledge as to the traffic light. Rather, what makes expert witness testimony unique is that it is the only type of testimony that does not require the witness to have personal knowledge of the matter. It is not even that the witness is offering an opinion lay witnesses can offer some opinions. It is not that the witness is compensated. And while these professional expert witnesses are the most common types of expert witnesses in civil litigation, they are certainly not the only types of witnesses who can provide expert testimony.Ī simpler way to think about expert witness testimony is to first understand what makes expert witness testimony unique. When it comes to expert witnesses, there can be a tendency to limit consideration to paid, third-party experts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |