¶1(dissenting).
¶2[¶ 21.] I dissent.
¶3[¶ 22.] I write specially to point out that the majority opinion misses the point - not once, but several times.
¶4[¶ 23.] Whether Boldus was qualified as an expert witness is immaterial. The point is that under the pretense of being an expert witness - Boldus cannot testify as a fact witness. He was not present at the scene. He does not know what happened. Only fact witnesses can testify - “as to what happened?”
¶5[¶24.] Therefore, under these circumstances, it was totally improper for Boldus to testify to his opinion “as to what hap*664pened in this case.” Therefore, we should reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶6[¶ 25.] I also join the dissent of Justice Amundson.