Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />harmed by an independent initial injury from subsidence in <br />underground mine workings. Thus, we reject this argument. <br />II. <br />Basin contends the judgment must be reversed because the <br />trial court erred in admitting and relying upon the testimony of <br />homeowners' expert witness concerning damages to homeowners' <br />residence. Specifically, Basin claims that (1) the trial court abused <br />its discretion in not issuing specific findings about t ie relevancy <br />and reliability of the expert's opinions pursuant to CRE 702; (2) the <br />expert witness failed to distinguish between damages occurring <br />prior to December 1, 1997, and those occurring after that date; and <br />(3) the expert witness's testimony that homeowners' land had no <br />remaining value as a rural residential property was irrational and <br />contrary to the undisputed facts. We disagree with this contention. <br />1 <br />CRE 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. <br />Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979 (Colo. 2002). The rule provides: <br />If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will <br />assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to <br />determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert <br />by knowledge, skill,_experience; training, or education, <br />may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. <br />io <br />