Evidence Code

ORS 40.420
Rule 704

Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. [1981 c.892 §60]

Notes of Decisions

Although 1981 Evidence Code liberalizes admissibility of expert opinion, it does not allow opinion as to who should win, and witness should not have been permitted to give opinion as to whether or not defendants were negligent. Phomvongsa v. Phounsaveth, 72 Or App 518, 696 P2d 567 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Expert testimony which merely tells jury what legal conclusion to reach is not admissible under this rule. French v. Barrett, 84 Or App 52, 733 P2d 89 (1987)

Court did not err by permitting expert to testify on ultimate questions of amount of damages. Becker v. Port Dock Four, Inc., 90 Or App 384, 752 P2d 1235 (1988)

Though it was not abuse of discretion to admit evidence of accident reconstruction, court erred in admitting expert testimony that particular sign was substantial factor in causing accident and was inadmissible “pure opinion” on legal consequence of disputed facts which did not assist jury but instead told it to reach particular result on contested causation question. DeRosa v. Kolb, 90 Or App 548, 752 P2d 1282 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

19 WLR 425 (1983)


Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023