https://www.apmlawyers.com/“Novel” Science in the Courtroom
In 1994 the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark decision R v Mohan settled the following general criteria for the admissibility of expert opinion evidence:
1) The evidence is relevant to some issue in the case;
Expert evidence forms the core of any personal injury claim. In almost every personal injury case the plaintiff must provide scientific evidence, usually if the form of testimony from teatingg doctors and other health care providers about issues surrounding causation of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Personal injury claims often boil don to a so-called “battle of the experts” and the judge or jury is forced to decide which evidence they feel is more reliable or reasonable.
Interpreting Scientific Evidence Challenging
A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court had to ask (and answer) this questions.
In Babakar v. Brown the Babakars were injured in a motor vehicle accident. They were insured by State Farm Insurance. They applied for accident benefits under their own automobile policy. Their insurance company sent the Babakars to see a psychologist, an orthopedic surgeon and a physiotherapist for so called “independent” medical examinations.
Plaintiffs Cut Off
“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”
Niels Bohr
Witnesses in a personal injury claim trial, or any trial for that matter, are only allowed to testify to facts. However, in some circumstances a witness may be allowed to offer an opinion. Only witnesses that have been accepted by the court as an expert in their field can offer their opinion.
Who Can Be An Expert?
Almost anyone can be qualified as an expert if they have special knowledge in a certain field that the average person doesn’t have.
