Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)

Citation: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Parent Document: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2013-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4954189/martini-v-post/ ↗

Full Text

686 chars

¶21 Post specifically contends that Dr. Kiesel’s declaration should not be considered because “the opinion he expresses is beyond the scope of his expertise” and “is based on nothing more than speculation and conjecture.” CP at 154-55. We disagree because the trial court properly exercised its discretion in considering this expert testimony, and we will not disturb that decision. See Moore v. Hagge, 158 *163Wn. App. 137,155, 241 P.3d 787 (2010) (“The trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony.” (citing Miller v. Likins, 109 Wn. App. 140, 147, 34 P.3d 835 (2001))); Oliver v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 106 Wn.2d 675, 683, 724 P.2d 1003 (1986).

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text