If no agreement on the choice of expert can be reached, who may select the expert?

• A. The court may select the expert.
• B. The party who pays more expenses selects.
• C. The expert must be selected by mutual agreement of both sides.
• D. The presiding judge at trial selects.

Answer: (A)

When parties cannot agree on who should be the expert, the court has the authority to appoint an expert. This ensures an independent, suitably qualified opinion is obtained without further delay and keeps the case moving forward. The court’s power to appoint guards against deadlock and preserves the integrity of the evidential process, since the chosen expert is impartial and objective.

The other ideas don’t fit because they would undermine impartiality or rely on a consensual arrangement that isn’t possible here. The party that pays more does not determine who provides the expert, and mutual agreement cannot be reached if there is a breakdown in agreement. While a judge involved in the trial can exercise the court’s power to appoint, the essential point is that the authority to select rests with the court, not with the parties.