32. Is the plaintiff's proposed testimony admissible?

C is correct. The fact that the back problems arose after the accident is probative on the issue of whether the accident was the cause of the injury. Therefore, the evidence meets the standard of relevance, and the testimony should be allowed.

A is incorrect. The plaintiff does not need to be qualified as an expert to testify that she had never previously had any problems with her back. Because the substance of the proposed testimony is a matter of personal knowledge, not expert opinion, the testimony should be allowed.

B is incorrect. Even though other factors may have contributed to the plaintiff's back injury after the accident, she nonetheless is allowed to testify that she had never had any problems with her back before the accident. The jury may consider these other factors in assessing the weight of the plaintiff's testimony.

D is incorrect. All testimony, even testimony by parties, is subject to the lay opinion rule under FRE 701. However, in this instance the plaintiff is giving a lay opinion based on personal knowledge that she had not previously had any problems with her back. The testimony should be allowed because it is helpful to the jury.