If you were my client there is no way I let the panel beater give that evidence. The argument goes something like this : opinion evidence is generally speaking inadmissible. The most common exception to this is expert opinion - doctors/engineers/etc etc.
Whether something is capable of coming within the realm of an expert is based on a bunch of things but includes whether it had been subject of publication / peer review / well established by research blah blah blah. The mechanisms of an accident, for example speed, can be measured by things like skidmark co-efficients, passage through the air, gouge marks on the road etc.
Working out "at fault" based on damage indicia can be admissible but if your witness is going to say something like, "because the front left strut on this car is broken" then in my opinion it means the driver of that car was on the wrong side of the road etc etc they need to be qualified to do so - commonly an engineer who practices in accident reconstruction or a copper from Accident Investigation might give this sort of evidence - but they need the creds and quals to be allowed to proffer that opinion.
Some meth cook panel beater certainly shouldn’t be giving that sort of opinion evidence (assuming some form of the rules of evidence apply in whatever jurisdiction you’re in).
Whether something is capable of coming within the realm of an expert is based on a bunch of things but includes whether it had been subject of publication / peer review / well established by research blah blah blah. The mechanisms of an accident, for example speed, can be measured by things like skidmark co-efficients, passage through the air, gouge marks on the road etc.
Working out "at fault" based on damage indicia can be admissible but if your witness is going to say something like, "because the front left strut on this car is broken" then in my opinion it means the driver of that car was on the wrong side of the road etc etc they need to be qualified to do so - commonly an engineer who practices in accident reconstruction or a copper from Accident Investigation might give this sort of evidence - but they need the creds and quals to be allowed to proffer that opinion.
Some meth cook panel beater certainly shouldn’t be giving that sort of opinion evidence (assuming some form of the rules of evidence apply in whatever jurisdiction you’re in).
Comment