Understand and explain why it is not always possible to distinguish between “fact” and
“opinion” in the Law of Evidence.
(b) Explain the opinion rule in terms of the “ultimate issue doctrine,” and why this approach may not be sound.
(c) Explain in detail the “true” opinion rule in the South African Law of Evidence.
(d) Distinguish between lay and expert witnesses and explain why the does not govern the admissibility of opinion evidence, but is important for procedural reasons.
(e) List and describe number of instances in which the opinions of lay witnesses have been accepted by our courts.
(f) Explain the “compendious mode” of testifying in the context of lay opinion evidence.
(g) Explain the test for admissibility of expert opinion evidence pursuant to the cases of Gentiruco v Firestone 1972 (1) SA 589 (A); Ruto Flour Mills v Adelson (1) 1958 (4) SA 235 (T); and in
particular Holtzhausen v Roodt 1997 (4) SA 766 (W).
(j) Explain in detail the ethical duties of the expert witness, as articulated in Schneider v Aspeling 2010 (5) SA 203 WCC and the “Ikarian Reefer” case.
(h) Explain why it is important to lay a proper foundation for expert opinion evidence, and what considerations may determine such a foundation.
(i) Explain in detail the considerations that guide our courts in assessing the probative value of expert opinion evidence, as expounded in the following cases: Coopers v Deutsche Gesellschaft 1976 (3) SA 352 (A); Michael v Linksfield Park Clinic 2001 (3) SA 1188 (SCA); and S v Van As 1991
(2) SACR 74 (W).
(k) Explain the role of hearsay in expert opinion evidence.
(l) Discuss the procedural aspects relating to expert opinion evidence, in particular the distinctions between and similarities between “present recollection refreshed” and “past recollection recorded” when expert witnesses testify from written reports.
