What is the test for admissible opinions and conclusions in a civil case?

As to the investigator's opinions and conclusions, appellants relied on Pruett v. Burr (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 188, 201, 257 P.2d 690 to argue that " [n]otwithstanding the general rule that public records and reports are admissible in evidence, the courts almost universally exclude statements contained in such reports or records concerning the cause of or responsibility for an injury to the person or damage to property. ... One ground on which such a report is excluded is that the statement as to the cause of or responsibility for the occurrence is a mere statement of opinion, and that since the officer or employee would not be permitted to state his opinion if on the witness stand, there is all the more reason for excluding his statement of opinion when he is not under oath and is not subject to cross-examination. " The court admitted the citation on the assumption that the investigator's opinions were admissible because they were based on the investigator's own observations. This assumption

[157 Cal.Rptr.3d 807]