No Expert Needed When Suing An Expert

Here’s a case from the Oklahoma Supreme Court that answers a question of first impression:

Do you need an expert to sue your former expert?

The answer is “no” under the unique facts of the case:

We emphasize that this matter is grounded on a claim for breach of contract. In so doing, we also stress that this opinion does not stand for the proposition that a losing party may recover monies paid to an expert witness for the formulation and presentation of a professional opinion in the context of litigation merely because the party requesting such opinion did not prevail or recover to the extent anticipated. Nevertheless, we determine that, under the unique facts of this cause, expert testimony demonstrating that Campbell’s performance in the underlying litigation was substandard was unnecessary. Campbell’s own admissions were sufficient to infer negligence. Furthermore, there was additional, supporting testimony indicating that Campbell did not present an accurate document which could be empirically supported or shown to comply with governmental standards. The testimony presented was most certainly such that a lay person, through common knowledge or experience, could determine that Campbell did not produce the very thing for which the Ellisons’ contracted, a supportable expert opinion concerning the state of the groundwater underlying the Ellisons’ property and the source of its pollution^. Finally, Campbell’s contradictory statements made at the time of his deposition and at trial were sufficient that a reasonable juror might well question his veracity.

Campbell was an expert hydrogeologist. (Mike Frisch)