Chapter III: Of Experts

The work of experts is to be used whenever, by the prescription of law or of the judge, their examination and opinion are required for proving some fact or for discerning the true nature of some thing.

§ 1. It belongs to the judge to choose or designate experts.

§ 2. In merely private causes the judge can make this designation at the request of both parties or even of either party, with the other nevertheless consenting; but in causes concerning the public good, after the promoter of justice or defender of the bond has been heard.

§ 3. It is left to the prudent judgment of the judge to choose one or several experts according to the nature of the cause and the difficulty of the matter, unless the law itself predetermines the number of experts.

It belongs to experts to conform their expertise to the laws of truth and justice, neither affirming what is false nor concealing what is true; if they offend in this, they are to be punished according to the norm of can. 1743, Sec. 3.

§ 1. For the office of expert, other things being equal, those are to be chosen who have been proved suitable by the authority of a competent magistrate.

§ 2. Those who are excluded from giving testimony according to the norm of can. 1757 cannot be assumed even to the office of experts.

§ 1. Experts also can be recusated for the same causes for which witnesses can be.

§ 2. The judge is to declare by his decree whether the recusation is to be admitted or not; and, the recusation having been admitted, he is to substitute another in place of the recusated expert.

§ 1. Experts are considered to undertake the office entrusted to them by rendering an oath concerning faithfully fulfilling the office.

§ 2. The parties can not only be present at the rendering of the oath, but also at the execution of the office entrusted to the expert, unless the nature of the matter or propriety requires otherwise, or the law or judge establishes otherwise.

After the oath has been rendered, if the experts have not obeyed the mandate within the predefined time or without just cause avoid the execution, they are held liable for damages.

§ 1. The judge, with attention to those things which perhaps may be brought forward by the litigants, is to define by his decree all and individual heads around which the work of the experts must be occupied.

§ 2. The time within which the examination must be completed and the opinion brought forth, if it seems necessary or opportune to the judge, can be predefined by the judge himself and also, after the parties have been heard, prolonged.

§ 1. If there is doubt who wrote some writing, besides the writing subject to question the judge is to assign to the experts, with the parties proposing them, writings with which that writing must be compared and collated.

§ 2. If the parties disagree concerning the writings which are to be compared among themselves, the judge is to select, for the sake of comparison, those which the party himself has otherwise recognized, or which the one accused as author of the controversial writing wrote as a public person and which are kept in archives or another public record office; or his signatures which, by the faith of a notary or public person, it is established were written before them.

§ 3. But if the writings designated by the parties and by the judge for comparison do not suffice for investigation in the judgment of the experts, and the person to whom the controversial writing is attributed is alive, the judge, at the instance of a party or even from office, is to cite him, so that with his own hand before the judge or his delegate he may write whatever the experts, the judge himself, or his delegate are about to dictate.

§ 4. Refusal to write, when a legitimate cause of refusal has not been proved, is held as a confession of the genuineness of the controversial writing to the prejudice of the one refusing.

§ 1. Experts can bring forth their opinion either in writing or orally before the judge; but if it is brought forth orally, it must immediately be reduced to writing by the notary and signed by the experts.

§ 2. An expert, however, especially if he has brought forth his opinion in writing, can be summoned by the judge so that he may supply explanations which seem further necessary.

§ 3. Experts must indicate clearly by what way and reasoning they proceeded in fulfilling the office entrusted to them and on what principal arguments the opinion brought forth by them rests.

Let each expert prepare his own report distinct from the others, unless, with the law not contradicting, the judge orders one report to be made and signed by the individual experts; but if this is done, differences of opinions, if there have been any, are to be noted diligently.

§ 1. If experts disagree among themselves, it is permitted to the judge either to seek the vote of a more expert person concerning the reports made by the first experts, or to employ new experts from the beginning.

§ 2. The judge has the same faculty whenever, after their election, the experts have fallen under suspicion or have been found unequal and not suitable for the office.

§ 1. The judge is to weigh attentively not only the conclusions of the experts, even if concordant, but also the other circumstances of the cause.

§ 2. When he renders the reasons for deciding, he must express by what arguments he was moved either to admit or to reject the conclusions of the experts.

The judge must tax the expenses and honoraria of the experts from what is good and equitable, keeping before his eyes the custom received in each place, with the right of recourse preserved according to the norm of can. 1913, Sec. 1.