With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 306-307, 740 A.2d at 191. A Louisiana court, also considerin y unwilling to allow a party to sue the opposing party’s expert witness for malpractice or negligence, in part because there is no reliance between the expert witness and the opposing party and because of the fear of retaliatory lawsuits. See, e.g., Jeffrey L. Harrison, Reconceptualizing the Expert Witness: Social Costs, Current Controls, and Proposed Responses, 18 Yale J. on Reg. 253 (2001); Douglas R. Pahl, Casenote, Absolute Immunity for the Negligent Expert Witness: Bruc ineers, Inc., 841 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. 1992) (era banc) (finding that an expert who provided negligent litigation support was not protected by witness immunity); but see Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc., 113 Wash.2d 123, 776 P.2d 666 (1989) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Mary Virginia Moore, Gary G. Johnson and

A: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify
C: recognizing that a surveyor was an expert witness
D: holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity
D.