Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals established a three-part test to determine whether expert the Eleventh Circuit has recog nized that “[w]hile scientific training or education may provide possible means to qualify, experience in a field may offer another path to expert status.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1261 (11th Cir.2004). To determine whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert regarding the matters he intends to address, the Eleventh Circuit and other courts of appeal have held that a witness who possesses general knowledge of a subject may qualify as an expert despite lacking specialized training or experience, so long as his testimony would likely assist a trier of fact. See United States v. Hensel, 711 F.2d 1000, 1006 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641, 665 (11th
holding that trial court did not err holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness with an extensive background in arson investigation to testify as an expert in a case involving a shipboard fire even though the majority of his experience concerned fires on land holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert witness in the area of gang identity and investigation based on his training and experience 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