In Barabin v. AstenJohnson, where Barabin sued for damage suffered from exposure to asbestos, the appeals court held that:
A) the head of a corporation is never required to testify in a deposition
B) the head of a corporation is only required to answer written interrogatories, not appear for a deposition
C) the head of a corporation may send a qualified corporate officer to testify in his place
D) the expert witness for AstenJohnson could not be a company employee
E) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court's decision in Barabin v. AstenJohnson would not specifically address the broad procedural issues regarding corporate testimony or the qualifications of expert witnesses as outlined in options A, B, C, and D. These options present general legal principles rather than specifics related to the case, which focused on the admissibility of expert testimony and the trial court's failure to properly assess the reliability of such testimony under the standards set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In Barabin V