2 total
Expert toxicological evidence on observable signs of intoxication was excluded as it falls within the common knowledge of a jury.
The court ruled on the admissibility of expert toxicological opinion evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and signs of intoxication during a trial.
The expert was deemed qualified to testify on BAC levels and their physiological effects based on assumptions.
However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on whether an individual exhibited signs of intoxication or others' ability to detect impairment, holding that these are matters of common knowledge for a jury and do not require expert testimony.
The court also cautioned against experts developing hypotheses and sifting through evidence to support them.
The court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead vicarious liability.
At the opening of trial, the plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to plead vicarious liability against the defendant Thomas Bolton for the negligence of the third party, Steve Coulthard.
The Bolton Estate resisted, arguing prejudice due to Mr. Bolton's death and the lateness of the amendment.
The court permitted the amendment, finding it did not raise a new cause of action but rather attached a legal label to existing facts, consistent with Rule 26.01, and that the defence would have understood the basis of liability.
