banner ad
Experts Logo

articles

Go Forth and Testify

By: Joe Samnik
Tel: 727-410-5797
Email Mr. Samnik


View Profile on Experts.com.


At first blush you may think that this article is about a small, albeit ugly armored animal and you would be justified in doing so. After all, the name Armadillo Partners conjures up a mental image of a corporate holding of armadillos, presumably for sale. Such would not be the case however. In fact, this article is about an arbor area and trees located at a shopping center called Armadillo Square in Broward County, Florida.

The Department of Transportation initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain property along Griffin Road for purposes of a road widening project. Parking spaces were lost. In an effort to replace the lost parking, an arbor area was taken and replaced with parking spaces. That is all fine and good, it happens all the time. However, in this instance, the appraiser for the Department of Transportation did not include the value of the arbor area in his assessment. Horrors to be sure!

Goodbye Frye: The Frye test holds that expert testimony is admissible only if the scientific principle or method is generally accepted in its particular field. It ensures that only methods that are competent are heard by the trier of fact. Expert testimony is not competent and therefore inadmissible if it is essentially speculative and conjectural. But in Armadillo the court held that the failure of an expert to consider one of many factors in determining compensation goes to the weight of this testimony, and not to his competency to testify. Yikes!

The Florida Supreme Court created a new standard for expert testimony in eminent domain by parting from Frye. Expert testimony is admissible unless the method used by the expert is totally inadequate or improper and would depart from all common sense and reason or would require adoption of a new and totally unauthenticated formula. The judge is no longer gatekeeper of evidence regarding the competency of the expert's methodology.

Of course, Armadillo regards Eminent Domain actions. Civil and Criminal actions return to the standards held by Frye or Daubert.

My best to you; now go forth and testify...


Joe Samnik, is an Arborist Certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. Mr. Samnik has over 46 years of practice encompassing tree issues, arboreal and horticultural consulting, dispute resolution, tree and plant appraisals and expert witness in tree and landscape issues.

©Copyright - All Rights Reserved

DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY AUTHOR.

Related articles

edward-dragan-photo.jpg

5/13/2013· Expert Witnessing

Litigation in Schools: How an Education Expert Can Benefit Your Case

By: Dr. Edward Dragan

Assigning fault and responsibility in a lawsuit involving a school is rarely clear cut.

Fulcrum-Inquiry-Logo.jpg

8/27/2012· Expert Witnessing

Avoiding Common Mistakes When Selecting An Expert Witness

By: David Nolte

The following suggestions result from my experience serving as a witness, watching hundreds of other expert witnesses, and locating witnesses when servings as a confidential consultant. They are intended to help attorneys avoid common mistakes in selecting an expert witness.

Greg-Gerganoff-OSHA-Safety-Expert-Photo.jpg

10/17/2017· Expert Witnessing

Do Your Expert Witness Reports and Testimony Comply with 2015 Amendments to CRCP (Colorado Code of Civil Procedure)?

By: Greg Gerganoff

The employ of expert witnesses in litigation is typically undertaken to help the decider of fact (judge or jury) decipher an area of specialized knowledge which is key to the case. The expert report serves the primary purpose of "educating" deciders of fact on topics not commonly known to the general public. However, a noncomplying expert report can wreak havoc on a case, increase costs or worse, have the expert's testimony precluded in whole or part from use at trial. This of course is contrary to the purpose of retaining an expert in the first place. Understanding the parameters of compliance (C.R.C.P. 26 (a) (2) (B) (I)) and how sanctions for non-compliance (C.R.C.P. 37 (c) (1)) may be applied is important not only for legal counsel but the expert as well under the 2015 rule updates and the recent Colorado Supreme Court case, Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado v. Earl Swensson Associates, Inc.

;
Experts.com-No broker Movie Ad

Follow us

linkedin logo youtube logo rss feed logo