PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Declarations & Affidavits
.........Experts
............Generally
17 Cards On This Topic:

Admission of expert testimony in summary judgment motions.

Expert testimony is admissible concerning any subject sufficiently beyond common experience such that testimony will assist trier of fact.

Abuse of discretion to grant manufacturer SJ where P's expert testimony, relevant and offered w/sufficient foundation, was erroneously excluded under Daubert.

P failed to carry burden of proving medical expert’s testimony admissible in birth defect PI case; SJ appropriate since, without E's testimony, P had no evidence of causation.

Sustaining objections to P's expert declaration based on EC 801(b) was abuse of discretion where declaration created triable issues of fact precluding SJ for Ds; liberal construction required; Sargon inapplicable.

Trial court properly excluded Ps' expert asbestos witness' declaration where it lacked proper foundation and amounted to speculation.

D doctor, in moving for SJ, failed to meet his burden of production of evidence where his medical expert based opinion on review of records not properly admitted under business record hearsay exception.

Plaintiff expert's opinions properly considered in opposing SJ and created triable issues of fact precluding SJ based on breach of duty of care and causation.

In medical malpractice case, P's opposing expert declaration, asserting surgery doctor performed was unnecessary, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact as to causation.

No expert declaration needed to decide if size or irregular shape of sidewalk crack made it dangerous and did not create a triable issue as to substantial risk of injury; no foundation for part of opinion.

SJ reversed where declaration of P's coworker in opposition raised triable issue of material fact as to D's liability; no general bar on introducing previously undisclosed evidence in opposition to SJ motion.

Expert witness declarations by a security consultant and former school administrator on issue of school's negligence properly excluded as speculative and conjectural.

SJ in medical malpractice case reversed where P's expert's declaration gave rise to triable issues of fact as to breach of duty and causation.

In medical negligence, D not entitled to SJ based on conclusory expert declaration stating opinion no malpractice occurred, but not explaining basis for opinion.

D carried its initial burden of introducing expert testimony which showed it had met the professional standard of care.

P’s failure to present legally admissible opinion testimony in opposition papers to controvert that submitted by D warranted SJ for D.

Trial ct. has discretion to determine competency and qualifications of expert witness to give opinion; ruling not appealable without manifest abuse of discretion.