- 65 -
v. Laeisz, 896 F.2d 964, 967-968 (5th Cir. 1990); Twin City
Plaza, Inc. v. Central Sur. & Ins. Corp., 409 F.2d 1195, 1200
(8th Cir. 1969); Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure, sec.
6641, at 251-252 (Interim ed. 1992). An expert may base an
opinion or inference on facts that the expert knows from first
hand observation, that are in the record and made known to the
expert, or that, although not in the record, are "of a type
reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in
forming opinions or inferences upon the subject." Fed. R. Evid.
703; see also Ramsey v. Culpepper, 738 F.2d 1092, 1101 (10th Cir.
1984); In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 22, 1974, 684
F.2d 1301, 1314 (9th Cir. 1982); Baumholser v. Amax Coal Co., 630
F.2d 550, 552-553 (7th Cir. 1980).
Although otherwise inadmissible data underlying an expert's
opinion may be admitted at trial, the use of that data is limited
to explaining the expert's reasoning, and is not admitted as
substantive evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 703, 705; Engebretsen v.
Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 21 F.3d 721, 728-729 (6th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Wright, 783 F.2d 1091, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1986);
Paddack v. Dave Christensen, Inc., 745 F.2d 1254, 1261-1262 (9th
Cir. 1984). Factual allegations that are not otherwise in the
record that are relied upon by an expert witness may be admitted
as substantive evidence only if proper foundational requirements
are satisfied; i.e., where the expert testifies from personal
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011