Wymеr L. Guest, an employee of Printpack, Inc., was injured while participating in the installation of a complex custom designed coater-laminator machine which his employer had purchased from Inta-Roto, Inc. As Guеst was engaged in the process of determining the route of an automatic threading chain through the coаter-laminator oven, an explosion venting door located on the equipment fell open and struck him in thе head.
Subsequently, Guest, as plaintiff, brought this action against Inta-Roto, Inc. on theories of negligence as to dеsign, manufacture and failure to warn and for strict liability as to design, construction and warning. Plaintiffs suit alleged substantial damages, and, after a trial of the case before a jury, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was returned in the amоunt of $75,000. Defendant’s motion for new trial was filed and denied, and defendant appeals. Held:
*76
1. Defendant contends thе trial court erred in admitting the testimony of an industrial consultant witness concerning his opinion that the design of the exрlosion venting door in equipment manufactured by defendant was defective. Defendant contends that the witness wаs not qualified to state opinions in the area of design of the equipment involved. The witness testified that he held bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering, he had taught at Clemson University for 40 years and had аcted as an industrial consultant on 75 to 80 occasions in regard to paper mills, textile mills and hydraulic equipmеnt, as well as having supervised various student projects. Although the witness had no prior experience with coater-lamináting machines such as that involved in the case sub judice, nor prior experience in designing explosiоn venting latches, such specific experience was not necessary in order to sustain the trial court’s decision that the witness was qualified as an expert in mechanical engineering. Nothing more is required to entitle оne to give testimony as an expert than that he has been educated in the particular trade or prоfession, although the special knowledge required to qualify as an expert may be derived from experience as well as study. See
Dennis v. State,
Dеfendant objected to this expert witness being allowed to answer a question as to his opinion as to whethеr or not the explosion venting door was safely designed. Defendant’s objection was predicated upоn the assertion that, “there remains no factual basis for his conclusion that is now sought to be elicited.” This contention fails to consider the witness’ personal observation of the actual machine and his analysis of the design therefor. Defendant’s objection is incorrect as the witness clearly made no unfounded factual assumptions but predicated his opinion on his own observations.
Bullington v. Chandler,
Defendant raises for the first time on appeal the further contention that the same question sought to elicit an impermissible legal conclusion as to the ultimatе issue. However, as this issue is raised for the first time on appeal and no objection was made on these
*77
grоunds in the trial court, we may not consider this issue for the first time on appeal.
Parks v. Parks,
2. The defendant enumerates as еrror the refusal of the trial court to give its requested charge to the jury on the issue of intervening act or omission by a third party as the proximate cause of an injury. The requested charge, predicated upon the dеcision of this court in
Irwin v. Georgia Power &c. Co.,
3. Defendant’s remaining enumerations of error deal with thе sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. If there is any evidence to support the verdict we must affirm.
Hembree v. Ideal Builders,
Judgment affirmed.