Waggaman v. Forstmann, 3807.
| Citation | 217 A.2d 310 |
| Case Date | February 24, 1966 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
217 A.2d 310
Wolcott C. WAGGAMAN and Lillian Waggaman, Appellants,
v.
John FORSTMANN, Appellee.
No. 3807.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued January 17, 1966.
Decided February 24, 1966.
R. K. Kennon Jones, Washington, D. C., with whom Arthur B. Hanson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Jerry C. Strauss, Washington, D. C., with whom Paul S. Quinn, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
MYERS, Associate Judge:
Appellants sued appellee for alleged damages to their furnished apartment in the amount of $1,489.301 during appellee's tenancy resulting from his use of the premises and its furnishings beyond ordinary wear and tear. After trial by jury, a verdict was rendered in favor of the landlords for $175, which appellants challenge on this appeal as inadequate. They contend the trial judge erred in refusing to permit three witnesses, whom they proffered as experts, to state their conclusions relating to wear and tear for guidance of the jury in reaching a verdict. These witnesses were one of the landlords (a retired architect), a furniture repair and upholstery man, and a general paint contractor. The trial judge held that the three witnesses did not qualify as experts under established law. They were, however, permitted to give direct testimony respecting the condition of the apartment and its contents as viewed by them after the lease had terminated.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that to warrant the use of expert testimony the subject dealt with must be so distinctively related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman and the witness must have such skill, knowledge or experience in that field or calling that his opinion will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.2 The qualifications of an expert to express an opinion on a particular matter are for the determination of the trial judge and his decision will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal except for a clear showing of abuse of discretion.3 It is equally well established that where the trier of facts is as competent as an expert to consider and weigh the evidence and to draw conclusions therefrom, it is improper to use expert testimony.4
Here expert opinions were primarily proffered to establish that damages to the furnishings were beyond normal wear and tear. Although the jury sustained this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middleton v. United States, 9341.
...several factors which govern the admissibility of expert testimony. The applicable test was set forth in Waggaman v. Forstmann, D.C.App., 217 A.2d 310, 311 It is well settled in this jurisdiction that to warrant the use of expert testimony the subject dealt with must be so distinctively rel......
-
Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 12614.
...supra at 832 (quoting McCormick on Evidence § 13 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972)) (emphasis omitted).] See Waggaman v. Forstmann, D.C.App., 217 A.2d 310, 311 (1966). Thus, the subject of the testimony must lend itself to expertise, the proffered expert must be qualified to give it, and experts must......
-
Adams v. United States, 82-858.
...and draw the necessary conclusions. . . ." Lampkins v. United States, 401 A.2d 966, 969 (D.C. (1979) (citing Waggaman v. Forstmann, 217 A.2d 310, 311 (D.C.1966)); Ibn-Tamas, 407 A.2d at 632; Middleton, 401 A.2d at 130 n. 43. Under such circumstances, admission of the expert's testimony woul......
-
Parker v. Grand Hyatt Hotel, CIV.A.98-2453 (RMU).
...related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman...." See Waggaman v. Forstmann, 217 A.2d 310, 311 (D.C.1966). In this case, expert testimony would be necessary to assist a jury in establishing the following: (a) the standard of care ......