At trial the district court allowed expert testimony by an accountant on lost profits based upon representations from the plaintiff’s management on the mix of sales. On appeal, the First Circuit found that other evidence in the record contradicted the expert’s assumption and that the expert’s testimony was dependent upon a product mix which the record as a whole did not support and which he had not independently verified. Admission of the expert’s testimony was an abuse of discretion. The judgment was vacated and a new trial ordered. Irvine v. Murad Skin Research Labs., Inc., 194 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 1999).
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.