{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016291698991466253, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.944700460829493, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Property liability of expert witnesses (articulation of the problem)


 This article is dedicated to the search of the answer to the question of whether or not an expert witness carries civil legal (property) liability for providing flawed expert opinion that the court refuses to admit as the valid evidence in a case. An attempt is made to answer the question of whether compensation of the expert can be lowered; should the initial expert’s testimony be paid if the court requires second opinion; can the court refuse payment to the expert witness or a conclusion must be made that expert witnesses have immunity from property liability. Based on the results of analysis of arbitration court case law it is determined that in majority of the cases courts conclude that despite an ill-prepared expert testimony, compensation of the expert witness cannot be decreased or unpaid, while independent claim against the expert will not be satisfied. Such approach of the judicial system testifies that expert witnesses have de-facto immunity from civil liability, despite the fact that such immunity is not covered by the legislation. Moreover, there is a principle of general tort, according to which any damages, including those inflicted by an expert witness, are subject to compensation. 
