Langness v. Fencil Urethane Systems, Inc.
667 N.W.2d 596, 2003 ND 132, 2003 N.D. LEXIS 152 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota Rule of Evidence 702, an expert witness can be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and does not need a formal degree or license in the specific field of testimony. Expert testimony based on hypothetical questions is permissible so long as the underlying facts of the hypothetical are supported by evidence in the record, even if those facts are disputed.
Facts:
- In 1997, Duane Langness was working to construct a large steel quonset building for RDO Farms.
- RDO Farms hired Fencil Urethane Systems, Inc. (Fencil) to spray the interior of the building with an epoxy primer containing methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), a chemical with warnings against vapor inhalation.
- On September 11, 1997, while Langness and other workers were inside the east end of the building, Fencil began spraying the primer from the west end.
- According to Langness, a blue fog of primer enveloped him and the other workers, despite his requests for Fencil to stop.
- Fencil allegedly sprayed on two separate occasions while the workers were inside the building, which had limited ventilation.
- Langness and other workers reported becoming ill, coughing, and throwing up after being exposed to the spray.
- Fencil's account disputed the duration of the spraying and claimed workers were warned and offered masks.
- Langness subsequently developed a respiratory condition known as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Systems (RADS), which he attributed to the chemical exposure.
Procedural Posture:
- Duane Langness sued Fencil Urethane Systems, Inc. and several other parties in a North Dakota trial court for negligence.
- Prior to trial, Langness settled his claims with all defendants except Fencil.
- Fencil filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Langness's expert witness, Dr. Alan Buck.
- The trial court granted Fencil's motion, preventing Dr. Buck from testifying.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial solely against Fencil.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that Fencil was not negligent.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing Langness's action against Fencil.
- Langness (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing the trial court erred in excluding his expert witness.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of a plaintiff's expert witness on the grounds that the expert lacked a specific degree in toxicology and his testimony would be speculative, when the expert had extensive experience and training in related scientific fields and the testimony was based on hypothetical questions grounded in evidence presented at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Maring, Justice
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Alan Buck. Under North Dakota's generous standard for expert testimony, a witness need not have a specific degree in a particular field if their knowledge, training, experience, or education will assist the trier of fact. The trial court misapplied the law by disqualifying Dr. Buck for not having a toxicology degree, despite his extensive background in chemistry, environmental physiology, and gas dispersion, which were directly relevant to calculating the concentration of toxic materials in the building. Furthermore, the court erred in deeming the testimony speculative; the factual dispute over the amount of primer sprayed is precisely the type of issue that can be addressed through hypothetical questions based on evidence in the record. Because Dr. Buck's testimony was critical to establishing Langness's negligence claim, its exclusion affected a substantial right and constitutes reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces North Dakota's liberal standard for the admission of expert testimony, emphasizing a functional approach over a rigid, credential-based one. The ruling clarifies that an expert's qualifications should be assessed based on their ability to assist the jury through relevant knowledge, regardless of their formal title. It also strongly endorses the use of hypothetical questions to allow experts to testify on disputed facts, leaving it to the jury to decide which version of the facts to believe. This precedent guides trial courts to act as gatekeepers for relevance and reliability but not to usurp the jury's role by excluding qualified experts based on an overly narrow view of their credentials or because the underlying facts are contested.
