 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
General Motors Corporation v. Pegues12/8/1998
rience of anyone who has been allowed to reconstruct the cause of an accident. For example, in one case upon which Pegues relies, the challenged expert had graduated from the Traffic Institute Accident Investigation School of Northwestern University and had extensive experience at Ford, GM, and Chrysler proving grounds as well as in the in the field as a police investigator. Hollingsworth v. Bovard Supply Co., 465 So. 2d 311, 313 (Miss. 1984). In another precedent cited by Pegues, a similarly trained expert had twelve years experience investigating between 400 and 600 accidents. Miller v. Stiglet, 523 So. 2d at 57. See also, Couch v. City of D'Iberville, 656 So. 2d 146, 152 (Miss. 1995) ("vast experience in police department investigation and the reconstruction of traffic accidents").
. A few cases relied upon by the majority permit expert testimony from witnesses with backgrounds similar to Spencer's. However, the question is not what general qualifications are necessary to be considered an expert, but what is that expert allowed to opine. In one case, the starter on a four month old vehicle without warning "became engaged, causing the motor to turn and the truck to move forward, pinning the plaintiff against the rear of a parked car" and causing severe injuries. Ford Motor Co. v. Cockrell, 211 So. 2d 833, 834 (Miss. 1968). A mechanic with 35 years of experience, being asked to assume as facts the entire if short repair and maintenance history of this vehicle, was asked whether what occurred was likely a manufacturing defect. The supreme court permitted his answer. Id. at 839. Similarly, another long-term owner of an automobile repair shop was allowed to testify "on the construction and working of the steering mechanism of a pickup truck and also the manner in which the cab was bolted to the chassis." Ford Motor Co. v. Dees, 223 So. 2d 638, 641 (Miss. 1969). There is no indication that the expert testified based on the physical evidence to explain the cause of the accident. Indeed, the court pointed out that each "juror could see for himself what happened" from examining the pictures and pieces of the wreckage that were introduced into evidence. Id. at 640.
. For a mechanic to testify, based on examining the wreckage, as to what caused the accident is to go well beyond what mechanics by experience and training are qualified to state. Spencer's hypothesis is the sole evidence that Pegues presented on the issue of causation. I find his qualifications inadequate to permit the testimony, and his actual testimony to be inconsistent with the physical evidence. We should reverse and render. MCMILLIN, P.J., AND HINKEBEIN, J., JOIN THIS SEPARATE OPINION.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|