Experts
Weight Given to Expert Testimony
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Estate of Hargett v. Brown, No. M2022-00250-COA-R3-CV, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2023).
Like decisions governing the admissibility of testimony, “[t]he weight, faith and credit to be given to any witness’s testimony lies in the first instance with the trier of fact. The credibility accorded will be given great weight by the appellate court.” Hollar, 2015 WL 7748967, at *3 (quoting Koch v. Koch, 874 S.W.2d 571, 577 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).
We also give great weight to a trial court’s factual findings that rest on determinations of credibility. Id.; In re Estate of Baker, 207 S.W.3d at 263.
As our Supreme Court has instructed regarding witness credibility:
When credibility and weight to be given testimony are involved, considerable deference must be afforded to the trial court when the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and to hear in-court testimony. Because trial courts are able to observe the witnesses, assess their demeanor, and evaluate other indicators of credibility, an assessment of credibility will not be overturned on appeal absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted). The trier of fact “is not bound to accept an expert witness’s testimony as true, and it may reject any expert testimony that it finds to be inconsistent with the credited evidence or is otherwise unreasonable.” Roach v. Dixie Gas Co., 371 S.W.3d 127, 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 720– 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)); see also England v. Burns Stone Co., 874 S.W.2d 32, 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (explaining that “the trier of fact may place whatever weight it chooses upon [expert] testimony”).
Gergel v. Gergel, No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV, p.13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).
Likewise, a trial court’s decision to include or exclude an expert witness’s testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 275 (Tenn. 2005); Jernigan v. Paasche, 637 S.W.3d 746, 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). Furthermore, the “weight of the theories and the resolution of legitimate but competing expert opinions are matters entrusted to the trier of fact.” Brown, 181 S.W.3d at 275. “Expert testimony is not conclusive, even if uncontradicted, but is rather purely advisory in character, and the trier of fact may place whatever weight it chooses on such testimony.” Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Moreover, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to conclude that the opinion of certain experts should be accepted over that of other experts and that it contains the more probable explanation.” Hinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 675, 676-77 (Tenn. 1983).
Garabrant v. Chambers, No. E2021-00128-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2022)
Furthermore, the “weight of the theories and the resolution of legitimate but competing expert opinions are matters entrusted to the trier of fact.” Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 275 (Tenn. 2005). “Expert testimony is not conclusive, even if uncontradicted, but is rather purely advisory in character, and the trier of fact may place whatever weight it chooses on such testimony.” Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Moreover, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to conclude that the opinion of certain experts should be accepted over that of other experts and that it contains the more probable explanation.” Hinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 675 (Tenn. 1983).
