Picture of John Day

§26.2A Admissibility of Testimony - Consultation with Other Experts

The Case: Holder v. Westgate Resorts Ltd., 356 S.W.3d 373 (Tenn. 2011).

The Basic Facts: In a premises liability trial, defendant’s expert was asked to testify regarding his method of measuring a corridor to determine its compliance with codes. The trial court excluded as hearsay testimony from the expert that the expert telephoned the International Codes Council, spoke with an unnamed person at the Council, and confirmed that the expert’s methodology was correct. The offer of proof showed that the expert would have testified that he and other experts in his field consult officials at the International Codes Council and rely on their instructions as an authoritative resource for proper code interpretation. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony.                

The Bottom Line:

Westgate asserts on appeal that the hearsay testimony is admissible because Mr. Horner is an expert witness testifying as to the basis of his opinion.” 356 S.W.3d at 378.

 

“Rule 703 provides that an expert opinion may be based on inadmissible evidence. An expert opinion based on inadmissible evidence is permitted if the facts or data on which the opinion is based are trustworthy and ‘of a type reasonably relied upon by experts’ in the field. Tenn. R. Evid. 703; see State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 151 (Tenn. 2007) (permitting an expert to testify to an opinion based on inadmissible hearsay evidence). However, the basis of an opinion, if not otherwise admissible, may be admitted only for the limited purpose of assisting the jury in understanding the opinion. Admission of otherwise inadmissible foundation evidence to assist the jury in understanding the opinion should be rare and should be accompanied by a limiting instruction. See State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 54 (Tenn. 2010) (‘Where an expert witness is referring to hearsay statements not otherwise admissible ... the trial court should instruct the jury that the hearsay statements are to be used only for evaluating the expert witness’s testimony and should not be relied on as substantive evidence.’). According to the rule in effect at the time of the trial, any admission of the basis of an opinion for the purpose of assisting the jury in understanding the opinion was subject to the provisions of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403. 7 See Tenn. R. Evid. 703 adv. comm. cmt. (‘Unfairly prejudicial facts or data should be dealt with under Rule 403.’).” Id. at 379.

“The
trial court determined that the evidence was offered for the truth of the information provided to Mr. Horner and was therefore hearsay. As such, its admission was not to assist the jury in understanding Mr. Horner’s opinion but to insert the opinion of another expert.” Id.

“Experts routinely consult other experts when forming their opinions. Rule 703, however, does not permit a testifying expert to act as the ‘mouthpiece’ of a non-testifying expert by simply parroting the non- testifying expert’s opinion. See Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 387 F.Supp.2d 794, 808 (N.D.Ill.2005) (observing that Federal Rule of Evidence 703 does not permit ‘a witness, under the guise of giving expert testimony, to in effect become the mouthpiece of the witnesses on whose statements or opinions the expert purports to base his opinion’); see also Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, L.L.C., 472 F.3d 398, 409 (6th Cir. 2006) (construing Federal Rule of Evidence 703) (‘Other circuits have squarely rejected any argument that Rule 703 extends so far as to allow an expert to testify about the conclusions of other experts.’). The opinion to which an expert testifies must be his own.” Id. at 380.

 

[Note: Four months after this trial, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703 was amended to add a sentence at the end stating: “Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.” The result of this case, however, should be the same under either version of Rule 703, as the new rule sets a higher bar to admissibility of the basis for expert opinion testimony than Rule 403 sets for evidence generally.]

After an accident, many injury victims and their families want more information on the accident and their legal rights. Consequently, many of them have found their way to these pages. While we are happy you are here, please understand Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law was written to be a quick, invaluable reference for Tennessee tort lawyers. While the book provides the leading case for more than 300 tort law subjects and thousands of related case citations, it is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Rather than researching these legal issues alone, we urge you to contact one of our award-winning lawyers who can sit down with you, review your case, answer your questions and clearly explain your rights and your options in a no-cost, no-obligation consultation. Our experienced attorneys handle all personal injury and wrongful death cases on a contingency basis, so we only get paid if we win. If for any reason you are unable to come to our office, we will gladly come to you.

To schedule an appointment, contact us online or call us at 615-742-4880 or toll-free at 866-812-8787.



The foregoing is an excerpt from Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law, published by John A. Day, Civil Trial Specialist, Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, recipient of Best Lawyers in America recognition, Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney, and Top 100 Tennessee Mid-South Super Lawyers designee. Read John’s full bio here.

To order a copy of the book, visit www.dayontortsbook.com. John also blogs regularly on key issues for tort lawyers. To subscribe to the Day on Torts blog, visit www.dayontorts.com.

Client Reviews
Everything was great. You guys are a great representative. I was satisfied with everything. Truly appreciate John Day and his hard-working staff.
★★★★★
We thought that you did an excellent job in representing us in our lawsuit. We would recommend you to anyone. Mitch Deese
★★★★★
The Law Offices of John Day is, without a doubt, the best in Nashville! They treated me with the utmost respect and tended to my every need. No question went unanswered. I was always kept informed of every step in the process. I received phenomenal results; I couldn't ask for more. I would definitely hire the Law Offices of John Day again. Anthony Santiago
★★★★★
I would definitely recommend to anyone to hire John Day's law firm because everyone was helpful, made everything clear and got the job done. I am satisfied with how my case was handled. June Keomahavong
★★★★★
It's been a long battle but this firm has been very efficient and has done a remarkable job for me! I highly recommend them to anyone needing legal assistance. Everyone has always been very kind and kept me informed of all actions promptly. Linda Bush
★★★★★
I had a great experience with the Law Offices of John Day. The staff was very accommodating, and my phone calls/emails were always responded to in a timely manner. They made the entire process very easy and stress-free for me, and I had confidence that my case was in good hands. I am very happy with the results, and I highly recommend! Casey Hutchinson
★★★★★