Can a geotechnical engineer testify about structural engineering standards? Ross v. Epic Engineering, PC Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed an important question about expert witness qualifications in Ross v. Epic Engineering, PC. The case highlights the strict requirements for experts testifying about professional standards of care.

Background and Facts

Jason Ross hired Epic Engineering to design a commercial building in Roosevelt, Utah. The contract specified structural engineering and drafting services for $8,250. Epic’s plans required footings to bear on “original undisturbed earth or engineered fill.” After construction, the building began settling due to unconsolidated fill material beneath the foundation. Ross sued for breach of contract, arguing Epic failed to properly engineer the plans by not requiring a soils report.

Key Legal Issues

The central issues were whether Ross’s geotechnical engineer expert was qualified to testify about the standard of care for structural engineers, and whether Epic’s contract implied a duty to investigate soil conditions. The case required expert testimony because “where the average person has little understanding of the duties owed by particular trades or professions, expert testimony must ordinarily be presented to establish the standard of care.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found Ross’s expert was properly excluded under Utah Rule of Evidence 702. Although the expert was a licensed engineer, he admitted he “was not asked to and did not prepare an opinion as to the standard of care applicable to Epic.” He acknowledged that geotechnical engineers don’t design buildings and that he would need to investigate other professionals’ practices to develop a standard of care opinion. The court emphasized that an opinion developed through such investigation would not result from the expert’s own “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” as required by Rule 702.

With Ross’s expert excluded, only Epic’s structural engineer expert remained, who testified that soil reports are typically not required for small commercial projects and that using International Building Code values was appropriate.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that expert witnesses must have actual expertise in the specific field at issue. Being licensed in a related engineering discipline is insufficient if the expert lacks knowledge about the particular standard of care in question. Practitioners should ensure their experts have direct experience with the standards they’re asked to address, rather than expecting courts to allow experts to develop opinions through case-specific research. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of having qualified expert testimony to survive summary judgment in professional liability cases.