Comparative Aspects of Expert Evidence in Civil Litigation

Abstract

To resolve factual questions that require specialist knowledge in civil cases, European Continental jurisdictions have traditionally used only court-appointed experts. Common law jurisdictions have almost exclusively resorted to experts retained by the parties. This article discusses the legal rules on court-appointed experts in different Continental jurisdictions and contrasts US and Continental rules on experts retained by the parties. These comparisons aim to provide insight into the different methods to regulate the use of experts in civil cases. In recent times, legislators in common law jurisdictions have encouraged the use of court-appointed experts while Continental jurisdictions gradually recognise the merits of hearing party-appointed experts. It is argued that legal rules that have been used and tested in one jurisdiction may serve as a source of inspiration for amending and improving rules in other legal systems.