Friday, September 08, 2006

Judicial Engineering

A South Carolina statute calls for anyone practicing engineering to be licensed by the state, and defines the practice of engineering to include the giving of "expert technical testimony." The South Carolina Supreme Court has nevertheless held that an out-of-state engineer offering expert accident reconstruction testimony was not practicing engineering within the statute's meaning. The court did acknowledge that an engineer testifying as an expert was "arguably" giving "expert technical testimony." But the legislature cannot have intended that result, said the state's high court, because it would imply that engineers not licensed by South Carolina cannot serve as expert engineering witnesses in South Carolina's courts.

The opinion does not appear to be available online yet. See Baggerly v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 26208 (S.C. Aug. 28, 2006).

Update 9/9/06: The opinion is now posted here.

posted by pn at 10:29 AM  

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Fed. R. Evid. 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.