Wiles v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 8623SC1064,8623SC1064
• Citation: 85 N.C.App. 162,354 S.E.2d 248
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: David Eric WILES and wife, Norma Wiles v. NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 248

354 S.E.2d 248

85 N.C.App. 162

David Eric WILES and wife, Norma Wiles v. NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 8623SC1064.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 7, 1987.

John T. Kilby, West Jefferson, for plaintiffs, appellees.

Morris, Golding, Phillips & Cloninger by John C. Cloninger and Jeff Dunham, Asheville, for defendant, appellant.

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

Defendant first contends the trial court erred to its prejudice in allowing Dr. Kenneth O. Baity to testify as an expert on the cause and origin of the fire, on the ground that Dr. Baity was not properly qualified as an expert in the field of cause and origin of fires. Defendant argues that Dr. Baity "never testified to attending any schools in the investigation of the cause and origin of fires" and that Dr. Baity "is not a member of any society involving arson investigation."

Whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is a question addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his finding is conclusive absent abuse of that discretion. R-Anell Homes v. Alexander & Alexander, 62 N.C.App. 653, 303 S.E.2d 573 (1983). The test for admissibility of expert testimony is whether the jury can receive appreciable help from the expert witness. State v. Knox, 78 N.C.App. 493, 337 S.E.2d 154 (1985). It is not necessary that the expert be experienced with the identical subject area in a particular case or that the expert be a specialist, licensed, or even engaged in a specific profession. State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984). It is enough that through study or experience the expert is better qualified than the jury to render an opinion regarding the particular subject. State v. Howard, 78 N.C.App. 262, 337 S.E.2d 598 (1985), disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 316 N.C. 198, 341 S.E.2d 581 (1986).

In the present case, Dr. Baity is a professor who has a doctorate in chemical engineering and has taught thermodynamics and heat transfer, the underlying sciences of fire and its propagation. He had since 1946 done consulting work for various companies and individuals in forensics in connection with fires and explosions. He had been called upon to do investigations with the purpose of giving an opinion as to the cause and origin of fires, and had been previously qualified as an expert to testify within these areas in the courts of this State. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that the trial judge erred in allowing Dr. Baity to testify as an expert in this case.

Defendant next contends the trial court erred to its prejudice in allowing Dr. Baity to testify about an experiment, and by allowing plaintiffs to introduce into evidence a photograph depicting the results of this experiment. Earlier, defendant's expert had testified that in his opinion the fire was intentionally set on the basement stairs, after a liquid accelerant such as kerosene had been poured on them. The expert based his opinion on the burn pattern on the stairs, among other things. Dr. Baity, plaintiffs' expert, testified that in his opinion the burn pattern on the stairs did not indicate that an accelerant had been poured onto the steps, but that burning material had fallen onto the steps from above. In the course of Dr. Baity's testimony, the court allowed plaintiffs to introduce evidence, over defendant's objection, of an experiment which Dr. Baity had conducted. To conduct the experiment, Dr....