Communicating Opinions/Testimony/Report Writing Flashcards
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Assocs. Eng’rs (1989)
Argument related to construction work on neighbor’s property, individual they hired testified but years later failed to provide them for names of contractors he contacted when calculating expenses and he said it would cost 100% more than was testified to so filed claim for his money; court said witnesses are not immune for negligence claim, an expert can be forced to pay damages to part who retained them arising out of that witness’s negligence, stated that Parties who employ professional engineers, because of their superior knowledge, are entitled to rely on that knowledge and to expect that such professionals will fulfill their duties of reasonable diligence, skill, and ability.” “Because Byrne has not demonstrated that, as a matter of law, he is entitled to a judgement barring a claim based on his negligent expert testimony.”
Budwin v. American Psychological Association (1994)
Psychologist in child custody & court appointed, report to separate children and court followed that recommendation; mother filed complaint alleging he made false statements about having an hour of interactive play with mother and child and withholding documents from her and her attorney and APA censured; psychologist appealed stating he was protected by litigation privilege; court said that
- litigation privilege protects people who testify in trial from liability but does not extend to preclude disciplinary liability by private associations (like APA)
- quasi-judicial immunity bars civil actions for acts performed during trial does not apply to private associations (only civil court)
Deatherage v. Examing Board of Psychology (1997)
Washington state brough disciplinary proceedings against psychologist b/c he failed to meet professional ethical standards in basis of his expert testimony in child custody suits; board found his failure to qualify statements, mischaracterization of statements, failure to verify information, and interpretation of test data were adequate grounds for initiating disciplinary proceedings and suspended his license for 10 years and he appealed; court said expert witness is not immune from state licensing board, statements are protected from civil liability but this is not a civil suit and cannot be used as a defense in disciplinary board
Murphy v. A. A. Mathews (1992):
Engineer testified that money was owed in compensation after construction problems, were awarded money and then after he was sued with allegations he was negligent in prepared of documents he presented and said was unable to support claims of need for compensation and court initially dismissed based on witness immunity; court then said witness immunity largely applies to defemination and retaliatory cases but that was not present in this case, privately retained experts can be sued when hired agency is claiming negligence (cannot be sued because someone disagrees with opinion but retaining party can sue when they think services are insufficient/inadequate)
Jenkins v. US (1961)
client initially incompetent but restored (receiving various dxes during restoration), plead NGRI and had 3 psychologists testify, all said schizophrenia 1 said no sanity opinion & 2 said connection between MH and offense, judge instructed jury to disregard psychologists opinions because they said could not testify to mental disease or defect and this was appealed; court said psychologists can testify as experts as to question of mental disease and defect, although being a psychologist is not enough it depends on “nature and extent of his knowledge”
