Cases - Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh

Record details

Name

Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh

Date

[1953]

Citation

SC 34 Court of Session (Scotland)

Keywords

Expert witness

Summary

In an action by a neighbour about damage caused to his property by blasting operations during sewer construction, issues arose as to the weight to be given to the evidence of expert witnesses called, including a builder, an architect and a civil engineer.

The judges made some observations on the weight and value to be given to the opinions of expert scientific witnesses.

'I do not consider that in the case of expert opinion evidence formal corroboration is required in the same way as it is required for proof of an essential fact, however desirable it may be in some cases to be able to rely upon two or more experts rather than upon one. The value of such evidence depends upon the authority, experience and qualifications of the expert and above all upon the extent to which his evidence carries conviction, and not upon the possibility of producing a second person to echo the sentiments of the first ...'

The defenders had gone so far, however, as to argue that the court was bound to accept the evidence of one of their experts:

'This view I must firmly reject as contrary to the principles in accordance with which expert opinion evidence is admitted. Expert witnesses, however skilled or eminent, can give no more than evidence. They cannot usurp the functions of the jury or the Judge sitting as a jury, any more than a technical assessor can substitute his advice for the judgment of the Court ... Their duty is to furnish the Judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested, becomes a factor (and often an important factor) for consideration along with the whole other evidence in the case, but the decision is for the Judge or jury.'