ELLISON v. CAMPBELL
2014 OK 15
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Ellisons hired Campbell as a hydrogeologist in 2001 to support groundwater pollution claims in Canadian County; Campbell advised drilling monitoring wells and preparing an expert report.
- Campbell prepared a report (Sept. 2006) and testified in a three-day deposition (Dec. 2006) with noted errors and unresolved protocol issues; he later quit assisting in the underlying case.
- The Ellisons settled the Canadian County litigation in Jan. 2007; they then filed a breach-of-contract suit in Oklahoma County seeking damages for Campbell's allegedly deficient work.
- A four-day trial in 2010 resulted in a jury verdict for Ellison-related damages totaling $408,748.68; Campbell moved for new trial or JNOV, which were denied.
- Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding Ellisons failed to prove breach without expert testimony countering Campbell's conclusions.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals and held that, under the unique facts, expert testimony was not necessary to prove breach; Campbell’s admissions and other testimony sufficed for lay jurors to find substandard performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove breach of contract by an expert in hydrogeology | Ellison argued no external expert was needed to prove substandard work. | Campbell argued Ellison must present an expert to refute his technical conclusions. | No expert testimony required under unique facts; lay evidence sufficient. |
| Whether Campbell breached contract by failing to provide a scientifically supportable product | Campbell provided an unsupported report and admitted errors. | Campbell contends he performed the contracted services. | Campbell breached the contract; admitted deficiencies support breach finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florafax International, Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 933 P.2d 282 (Okla. 1997) (standards for expert testimony in contract cases)
- James v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 292 P.3d 10 (Okla. 2012) (review standards for jury verdicts and abuse of discretion)
- Covel v. Rodriguez, 272 P.3d 705 (Okla. 2012) (claims-based review of expert testimony necessity)
- West v. Board of County Commissioners of Pawnee County, 273 P.3d 31 (Okla. 2011) (expert testimony requirements and lay knowledge)
- Johnson v. Hillcrest Health Center, Inc., 70 P.3d 811 (Okla. 2003) (causation/causal standards in professional contexts)
- Head v. McCracken, 102 P.3d 670 (Okla. 2004) (limits on expert necessity in certain actions)
- Crussel v. Kirk, 894 P.2d 1116 (Okla. 1995) (trial court discretion on witness admission)
- Mooney v. Mooney, 52 P.3d 1014 (Okla. 2002) (appellate review of contract-related claims)