Gomez v. Salt Lake Community College District

Gomez v. Salt Lake Community College District, Case No. 981239-CA, Filed October 1, 1998. MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication)

  IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Alexander Gomez, Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. Salt Lake Community College District, the State of Utah, Defendant and Appellee.


Case No. 981239-CA


F I L E D (October 1, 1998)   -----  

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley

Attorneys: Mark Dalton Dunn, West Valley City, for Appellant

Jan Graham and Nancy L. Kemp, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----  

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Jackson.

PER CURIAM:

According to Utah 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, expertise, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of any opinion or otherwise.

The record supports the trial court's conclusion that neither of Gomez's proposed expert witnesses, Roger Reid nor Dee Oldroyd, would have assisted the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining whether Salt Lake Community College's (SLCC) alleged negligence was the cause of Gomez's injuries.

"Where the subject of inquiry is a field beyond the knowledge generally possessed by a layman, one properly qualified therein maybe permitted to testify to his opinion as an expert." Edwards v. Didericksen, 597 P.2d 1328, 1330 (Utah 1979). This was not such a case. The jury was asked to determine whether colliding with a wall heater unit after a lay-up attempt was due to SLCC's or Gomez's negligence, i.e., was the backboard too close to the wall, was the heater unit installed in a dangerous location, should the heater unit have been padded, was it dangerous to conduct basketball classes cross-court in the gym and did SLCC fail to supervise its employees. The jurors did not need expert testimony to make these determinations since the issues were not so far outside the general knowledge or common sense experience of the jury and did not concern technological complexities.

Even if we had concluded that the case involved technical or scientific evidence, the proposed expert witnesses, by their own admissions, were not qualified to testify concerning standards for basketball court layout and design or on the standards for instructing a beginning basketball class at the college level.

Because the proposed expert testimony was properly excluded, the trial court is affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Judith M. Billings, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge