242 P.3d 719
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant provided day care for a five-month-old infant, K.
- K suffered a facial burn while in defendant's care on January 15, 2008, requiring two nights in a hospital burn center.
- Defendant offered multiple explanations for the injury, including lotion reaction and hot water exposure.
- Expert pediatrician Leonhardt testified that the burn was a well-demarcated second-degree, likely inflicted through submersion in hot liquid.
- Defendant objected that the testimony called for speculation, which the trial court overruled.
- On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court’s overruling and preservation of the objection; the court ultimately affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in overruling the objection to expert testimony as speculative | Bigelow argues the expert’s cause opinion was speculative | Bigelow contends the expert lacked foundation and the opinion commented on credibility | Issue not preserved; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335 (2000) (preservation and specificity of objections)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347 (1990) (preservation and surprise in objections)