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

986 chars

¶23 Dr. Kiesel also had an adequate factual basis for his expert opinion. See Miller, 109 Wn. App. at 148 (“ £[C]onclusory or speculative expert opinions lacking an adequate foundation will not be admitted.’ ” (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. v. McGrath, 63 Wn. App. 170, 177, 817 P.2d 861 (1991))). He based his opinion that Abson would have survived if she had been able to open a window and access fresh air in large part on the facts that (1) two individuals trapped in the upstairs front bedroom were able to survive by opening a window and breathing fresh air and (2) Abson had no identified natural diseases that would have contributed to her death. Dr. Kiesel also performed an autopsy on Abson and read the City of Tacoma Fire Department’s fire investigation report in formulating his opinion. Dr. Kiesel had an adequate factual basis for his expert opinion, and we hold that the trial court properly considered Dr. Kiesel’s expert opinion. *164C. Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration.

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text