Legal Question in Personal Injury in California
When an eyewitness to an injury case has observations (things they saw and heard)
but they also have opinions (things they "felt intuitively" or "thought it seemed like")
are the opinions admissible evidence?
Can you bring their observations in as evidence yet exclude their opinions, and intuitive feelings?
I have a case where two key witnesses observations strongly support my case, but their "intuitive" and "emotional" opinions go against my case.
This may be colored by the fact that at the scene they focused on rendering comfort to the uninjured but crying young plaintiff weeping about the trouble she was going to get in with her parents, and stayed away from me because (having just suffered severe injuries) I was in shock and appeared scary and enraged (though I sat passively in my car the whole time, until the ambulance cut me out and hauled me away)
2 Answers from Attorneys
Non-expert witnesses are limited to testifying to what they observed and technically are not allowed to testify as to their conclusions, opinions, beliefs as to what something means, etc., but such matters do color their testimony and sometimes they manage to slip those forbidden comments into their testimony.
There are some opinions or estimates allowed from non-expert witnesses, such as speed of a vehicle, appearance of intoxication, value of property, etc. It is limited but it must be something that is expected that the person testifying would be competent to testify about.... For example, any driver can give an opinion based on his or her experience as a driver as to the speed of other vehicles that he or she was able to observe before the accident. You cannot ask (assuming there is an objection) if the person injured had a broken bone (unless the bone was sticking out) but you can ask a non-medical witness if the person appeared to be in pain and the person can say yes or no and then will be asked to state the basis for that opinion (such as how the person looked or reacted). The Evidence code has a list of types of non-expert opinions that are allowed. As to others, it is within the judge's discretion if the opinion is such that an expert would not be required to state such an opinion. Also, it is not hard to be an expert on something. All that is required is some special experience or training in something to qualify as an expert on something if the judge is convinced that the person has that special knowledge. It is then up to the trier of facts (judge or jury) to consider the opinion and give it the weight it deserves based on the experience, training and education of the person giving the opinion. In other words, even if you are allowed to give an opinion, you must still show the basis for it. This is why it is important to have a lawyer can that help you boost the opinion of your own witnesses and reduce the importance of the opinions of the other party's witnesses. I hope this dissertation on the law of evidence helps you understand your situation. The California Evidence Code is relatively short so read it and learn......Good luck.