Workmanship Claims on Trial: The Expert Witness Divide

By Christian Lunghi 

In construction litigation, it’s easy to focus on the visible damage — the crooked beam, the leaking roof, or the puddle in the basement — and think, “any jury can see what’s wrong here.” But when it comes to proving a breach of the applicable standard of care, appearances may not be enough. If you’re litigating claims based on bad workmanship, the need for expert testimony is not just a good idea — it’s often essential.

When Is an Expert Required?

Courts routinely recognize that an expert is necessary to establish a breach of professional or trade standards unless the issue is obvious to a layperson. In the construction context, this means demonstrating that the contractor failed to perform according to the workmanship standards expected of builders in the jurisdiction.

As the North Carolina Court of Appeals put it:

“It is the duty of every contractor or builder to perform in a proper and workmanlike manner. The law recognizes an implied warranty that the contractor or builder will use the customary standard of skill and care.” Kenney v. Medlin Constr. & Realty Co., 68 N.C. App. 339, 343, 315 S.E.2d 311, 314 (1984) (citing Hartley v. Ballou, 286 N.C. 51, 209 S.E. 2d 776 (1974)).

This “customary standard of skill and care” can vary by locality, trade, and time period, making it difficult for a jury to evaluate without expert assistance. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reinforced this point in a more recent decision:

The core of a workmanship claim is a claim that a professional failed to utilize ‘the customary standard of skill and care’ in completing a project, based upon the particular industry, location, and timeframe in which the project occurred. See Kenney, 68 N.C. App. at 343, 315 S.E.2d at 314. And in most cases, the average juror would not have the requisite knowledge and experience to evaluate the prevailing professional standards in a particular industry and area.

Dan King Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC v. Harrison, 281 N.C. App. 312, 334, 869 S.E.2d 34, 51–52 (2022).

So unless your workmanship claim falls under the “common knowledge” exception, expect to bring an expert to trial.

The “Common Knowledge” Exception

There is an exception — but it’s narrow.

“This exception holds that ‘where the common knowledge and experience of the jury is sufficient to evaluate compliance with a standard of care, expert testimony is not needed.’” Dan King Plumbing, 281 N.C. App. at 333–34, 869 S.E.2d at 51 (citing Delta Env’t Consultants of N. Carolina, Inc. v. Wysong & Miles Co., 132 N.C. App. 160, 168, 510 S.E.2d 690, 695 (1999)).

Think broken windows, visibly off-kilter structures, or leaking roofs in brand-new construction. If it’s obvious enough that a jury wouldn’t need help to see that something’s wrong, you might not need an expert. But beware — courts interpret this exception narrowly. The fact that something seems obvious doesn’t always mean it is legally obvious.

“[T]his exception [is] reserved for cases where the complained-of professional conduct ‘is so grossly negligent that a layperson’s knowledge and experience make obvious the shortcomings of the professional’—such as a medical malpractice case in which ‘an open wound was not cleansed or sterilized’ before being placed in a cast.” Dan King Plumbing, 281 N.C. App. at 334, 869 S.E.2d at 51 (citing Delta Env’t Consultants, 132 N.C. App. at 168, 510 S.E.2d at 695; Little v. Matthewson, 114 N.C. App. 562, 442 S.E.2d 567 (1994)).

One helpful approach is to break down your claimed damages into categories: those that implicate the standard of care (and require expert testimony), and those that don’t.

When You Might Not Need an Expert

Not all damages flow from bad workmanship in the technical sense. Some may arise from straightforward breaches of contract, abandonment, or financial mismanagement. These categories can fall outside the realm of expert testimony — at least with respect to workmanship claims.

For instance:

• If the builder misappropriated funds or used deposit money for unrelated expenses, that’s not a workmanship issue.
• If construction was never started, or only barely begun before the contractor disappeared, you’re dealing with nonperformance — not a deviation from the standard of care.
• If the owner had to hire a replacement contractor after a walk-off mid-project, the resulting cost increase may be recoverable without needing expert input on workmanship quality.
• If the builder failed to secure required permits or inspections, leading to fines or work stoppages, that’s not likely a technical question of workmanship.
• If a project was left open to the elements, leading to water damage or pest infestation, the harm is obvious and probably doesn’t require an expert to explain why it happened.
• If a contractor damaged the owner’s personal property — like appliances, furniture, or landscaping — that’s just property damage. You likely don’t need expert testimony to understand a cracked granite countertop or a smashed retaining wall.

In such cases, lay testimony, photographs, contract documents, and financial records can go a long way in proving the claim.

Practical Takeaways

1. Start early: Identify which parts of your case turn on industry standards — and retain an expert to support those points.
2. Categorize your damages: Divide claims into those that require standard-of-care analysis and those that don’t.
3. Don’t over-rely on the “common knowledge” exception: It’s tempting, but risky. Courts want to see a clear basis for skipping expert input.
4. Use your expert strategically: A good expert doesn’t just explain what went wrong — they help anchor the jury’s expectations for what should have been done.

Like all litigation, construction claims can live or die on technical proof. When the claim is about bad workmanship, don’t count on common sense carrying the day — count on an expert opinion.