(Alaska 2002) (determining that the trial court erroneously excluded expert witness testimony regarding the "appropriate standard of care for a heating service professional"); Wilson v. State, 669 P.2d 1292, 1296-97 (Alaska 1983) (concluding that it was not error to allow an expert to state an opinion that an OSHA inspector was negligent in conducting an inspection of a drilling platform). 20 . See, eg., Thurman v. Clune, 51 Cal.App.2d 505, 125 P.2d 59, 60 (1942) ("[The opinion of experts relative to the proper safeguards to be taken in the construction of ice hockey rinks is evidence which is admissible ... on the query of whether defendant in a particular instance has properly safeguarded the ice hockey rink in question."); Remley v. Newton, 147 Colo. 401, 364 P.2d 581, 583 (1961) (<HOLDING>); Bengjam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 246
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony regarding the safe and proper way to install tether ball equipment in a negligence action holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor holding that trial court erred in excluding material testimony when court misapprehended partys awareness of witness holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care