I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 1 1 0 1 - S CT HYU NDAI M OTOR AM

ERICA AND HYU

NDAI M OTOR COM

P AN Y
v. OLA M AE AP PL EW HI TE, ASPER S ONAL REP RES EN T AT I VE OF T HE ES T AT E O F A ND W RONGF UL DE

AT H BENE FICI

AR I ESOF DOR OT HY MAE A P

P L EWHI T

E, DE CE

AS ED ; CEOLA W

ADE, ASPER S ONAL REP RES EN T AT I VE OF T HE ES T AT E O F A ND W RONGF UL DE

AT H BENE FICI

AR I ESOF AN T HONY J . S T EWAR T , DE CE AS ED ; AN D I DA M AE COOPER , ASPER S ONAL REP RES EN T AT I VE OF T HE ES T AT E O F A ND W RONGF UL DE

AT H BENE FICI

AR I ESOF CEC I LI A CO OPER, DE CEA SED AN D K EN NE TH CART ER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 21/ 2008 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . A L B E R T B . S M IT H , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COAHO M A COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : J . C O L L IN S W O H N E R , J R . J I M M Y B . W I L KI NS THOM AS N. VAN DERF ORD, J R. M I CH AE L KI NG RO BERT W I LLI AM M AX W ELL AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : RA L P H E DW I N C HAP M AN SA RA BA I LEY RU SSO DANA J . S W AN C. KEN T HA NEY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 10/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

### 2

B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . In t h is w r o n g f

u l d e a th , p ro d u c t lia b ility c a s e , th e ju ry a w a rd e d th e p la in tif fs $ 4 .5
m i l l i on, or$1. 5 mi l l i on f ore ach of

thr ee de cede nt s , f

i ndi ng thatthe aut om obi l e ati s s ue w as defect i ve in bo th i t s desi gn an d m anu facture. In an eff ortt o co nv i nce thi s C ou rtt o reverse the tr i al j udgm entand t o re nderj udgm ent i n i t s fa vor , H yundai chal l enges the r el i abi l i ty of the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ thr ee e xpert s on appea l . W e f i nd, f r om the r ecor d bef

or e us , thatthe tr i al j udge d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n in a llo w in g th e ju ry to c o n s id e r th e se e x p e rts’ te stim o n y in
r e a c hi ng i t s v e r di c t , a nd tha t , the r e f or e , Hyund a i i s n ote nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a matt erof l aw . H ow ever , be caus e the pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed i n thei rduty s eas onabl y t o amend t hei rr es pons es t o H yundai ’ s r eques t s f

ordi s covery, w e r ever s e the j udgm enta nd r emand the cas e f ora new trial. F a cts ¶2. O n J ul y 9, 1995, ar ound 8: 00 a. m . , D orot hy M ae A ppl ew hi t e, C eci l i a C ooper , and A nthony St ew artw er e tr avel i ng s outh on U . S. H i ghw ay 61 nea rD undee, M i s s i s s i ppi . T he three w ere re tu rn in g h o m e to C larksd ale a ft er h av ing w o rke d the n igh t shiftat th e S am ’s T ow n C as i no i n T uni ca. T he ca rw as A ppl ew hi t e’ s 1993 H yundai E xcel . I ti s uncl earw ho
w a s d riv in g , b u t th e tw o w o m e n w e re in th e fro n t se a ts, a n d S tew a rt w a s o n th e re a r se a t. ¶3 . O ne of

the i rc owor ke r s , Rol a nd J or da n, was tr avel i ng i n t he s ame di r ect i on on H i ghw ay 61 j us tahea d of the E xcel . J or dan t es t i f i ed that , atf

i r s t , the Excel w as dr i vi ng nor m al l y. H ow ever , ats om e poi nt , he not i ced the ca rbe gi n t o w eave . A ccor di ng t o J or dan,

### 3

the Excel dr i f

t ed ont o the l ef

ts houl derappr oxi m at el y thr ee t i m es . T he thi r d t i m e, the Excel
c a me ba c k o nt o the r oa dway a nd s w e r ve d i nt o the no r thb ou nd l a ne , hi t t i ng a n o nc omi ng 1 9 9 3 L in c o ln C o n tin e n ta l p a s s e n g e r c a r. ¶ 4 . T h e E x c e l w a s to rn in to tw o p iec e s. T h e fr o n t p o rtio n o f th e v e h icle c a m e to re st six ty f eetnor th of

the poi ntof

i m pact . T he pas s engercompar t m ents t ayed w i th the r earof t he vehi cl e and came t o r es ts i x t o t en f eetnor th of

the cr as h s i t e. A ppl ew hi t e and Cooperl anded
o n th e p a v e m e n t, an d S tew a rt w a s fo u n d p a rtially in sid e th e p a ss e n g e r c o m p a rtm e n t. A ll three di ed atthe scene. T he C on t i nen t al ’s occu pan t s sust ai ned no n-l i fe- threat ening i njur i es. ¶ 5 . A t trial, the p lain tiffs u n d e rto o k to p ro v e tha t th e E x c e l w a s n o t cr a sh w o rth y d u e to d efe cts i n b o th it s d esig n an d m an u fac ture. P lai n ti ffs ad d u ce d the testi m o n y o f th ree ex p ert
w i tnes s es : A ndr ew W ebb, an ac ci dentr econs truct i oni s t , James D . M undo, an engi neer , and D r . J os eph L. B ur t on, a f ore ns i c pathol ogi s ts peci al i zi ng i n bi om echa ni cs . W ebb t es t i f i ed thathe had us ed a c om put erpr ogr am t o r econs tructthe ac ci dentand conc l uded that , had the E xcel r emai ned i nt act , the occupa nt s w oul d ha ve exper i ence d a c hange i n ve l oci ty ( ordel t av) of thi r ty- f

i ve m i l es perhour. D r . B ur t on t es t i f i ed thatatthi r ty- f

i ve mi l es perhour , i tw as “more l i kel y than not ” thatthe occ upant s w oul d have s ur vi ved the cr as h. Fi nal l y, M undo opi ned that , i n hi s expertopi ni on, the ca rw as def ect i ve i n bot h i t s desi gn and m anuf actur e, a n d th e s e d e fe c ts c a u s e d th e c a r t o c o m e a p a rt d u ri n g th e c ra s h . ¶6. T he def

endant ’ s acc i dent r econs truct i oni s t , D r . G eof f G erm ane, opi ned that , had the vehi cl e r emai ned i nt act , the occ upant s w oul d have e xper i ence d a del t a- v r angi ng f r om f i f tyfi ve to si xty- seven m i l es per hou r. D r. B urt on , the p l ai nti ff s’ ex pert , co nced ed thata cras h is no t surv ivab le w ith a d elt a-v in ex ce ss o f fi fty m il es p er h o u r.

### 4

¶7. O n A pr i l 3, 2008, f ol l ow i ng ni ne days of t es t i m ony, the j ury unani m ous l y f ound that H yundai w as l i abl e f

orthe dea ths bas ed on the Excel ’ s def ect i ve des i gn and def

ect i ve m a n u fa c tu re . T h e ju ry a w a rd e d d a m a g e s o f $ 1 .5 m ill io n fo r e a c h o f th e th re e d e a th s a n d d id notal l ocat e any f

aul tt o t he dr i verof

the Excel . H yundai appea l ed. I s s ues ¶ 8 . H y u n d a i ra ise s n u m e ro u s is su e s o n a p p e a l. F irst, H y u n d a i ar g u e s th a t itis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f la w b e c a u se a ll th re e o f th e p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt s o ffe re d u n re liab le t es t i m ony. Second, H yundai ar gues that , i n the al t ernat i ve, i ti s e nt i t l ed t o a ne w tr i al bas ed
on s i x harm f

ul err or s : ( 1) H yundai w as ambushed a ttr i al w hen W ebb cha nged hi s opi ni on; ( 2) the j ury’ s al l ocat i on of 100% f aul tt o H yundai demonstr at es the j ury’s p as s i on and pr ej udi ce i n r eac hi ng i t s ver di ct ; ( 3) H yundai ’ s cr as h t es tvi deos w er e w r ongl y e xcl uded; ( 4)
s eatbel tevi dence w as w r ongl y e xc l ud e d; ( 5) pr i ora c c i dent s evi dence w as w r ongl y admi t t ed;
a n d (6 ) th e ju d g e e rre d b y re fu sin g to d ism iss a sle e p in g ju ro r. F in a lly , H y u n d a i ar g u e s th a t, even i f the j udgm ent shoul d s t and, the tr i al j udge’ s i m pos i t i on of an 8% pos t -

j udgm ent i nt er es tr at e w as unf

ai r l y puni t i ve. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on in a llo w in g th e ju ry to c o n sid e r th e p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt te s tim o n y . H o w e v e r, th e c h a n g e in W e b b ’s o p in io n re q u ire s re v e rsa l. B e c a u se th e p la in tif fs’ fa ilu re p ro p e rly a n d tim e ly to not i f y the def endantof the cha nge i n W ebb’ s opi ni on i s di s pos i t i ve, w e w i l l notaddr es s the
o th e r i s s u e s . D i s cus s i on ¶9. W hether a party i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent as a m att er of l aw i s an i s s ue that w e r evi ew de novo . S o la n k i v. E rv in , 21 So. 3d 552, 565 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng U . S. Fid. & G uar. Co.

### 5

v. Ma rtin , 998 So. 2d 956, 964 ( M i s s . 2008)) . “T hi s C our tw i l l cons i derthe evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he appel l ee, gi vi ng t hatpar ty the bene f i tof al l f avor abl e i nf

er ence thatm ay be r eas onabl y dr aw n f r om the evi dence . ” S

po tlite Ska tin g R in k, Inc. v. B arn es, 988 So. 2d 364, 368 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng A la. G r eat S. R . R . Co. v. L ee , 826 So. 2d 1232, 1235 ( M i s s . 2002) ) . W e w i l l af f i r m the deni al of

a mot i on f

ora di r ect ed ver di ct , ora mot i on for a jud g m en t n o tw ith stan d ing th e v erd ict , w h ere there is “su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt the ver di ct ”; butw e w i l l re ver s e i f “t he evi dence , as appl i ed t o t he el ement s of a party’ s cas e, i s ei therso i nd i s put abl e, ors o def i ci ent , thatthe nec es s i ty of a tr i erof

f acthas been obvi at ed. ” Ma rtin , 998 So. 2d at964 ( quot i ng W hite v. Stew m an , 93 2 S o. 2d 27 , 32 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 )). ¶10. C onver s el y, thi s C our tw i l l notr ever s e a tr i al court ’ s deni al of a mot i on f

ora new tr i al
a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Solanki , 21 So. 3d at569 ( ci t i ng P ier ce v. Cook, 992 So. 2d 6 1 2 , 6 2 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); A l l state I n s. Co. v. McG ory , 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). “[ A ] new t r i al becom es appr opr i at e w hen a t r i al cour tdet erm i nes t haterr orw i thi n the tr i al
m echan i sm i t s el f

has caus ed a l egal l y i ncorr ectorunj us tver di ctt o be r ender ed. ” I d. ( quot i ng W

h ite, 9 3 2 S o . 2 d 2 7 a t 3 3 ). ¶1 1 . A s for ev iden ti ary m att ers, inclu d ing the a llo w a n c e o f e x p e rt test im o n y , this co u rt
a p p lie s a n “ a b u s e o f d is c re tio n ” s ta n d a rd . B u llo c k v. L o tt , 96 4 S o. 2d 11 19 , 11 28 (M i ss. 2007) ( ci t i ng W

e b b v. B ra sw e ll

, 9 3 0 S o . 2 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 6 -97 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )). I. T h e tria l ju d

g e did n o t a b u se h is disc re tio n b y a llo w in gth e ju ry to cons iderthe plainti

f f s ’exper t tes tim ony.

### 6

¶12. H yundai ar gu es t hat t he t ri al judge shou l d have gr ant ed i t s m ot i on f ora di r ect ed
ver di ctand/ ori t s m ot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng t he ver di ctbecaus e the Excel w as n o t d e fe c tiv e a n d th e im p a c t w a s n o t su rv iv a b le a s a m a tter o f la w . In m a k in g th is a rg u m e n t, H y u n d a i attac k s a ll th re e o f th e p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt o p in io n s, alle g in g th a t th e y w e re u n re liab le underthe s t andar ds pr onounced i n M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of Evi dence 702 and D a u b e rt v . Me rr e ll D ow P harm aceuti cal

s, I nc. , 5 0 9 U . S . 5 7 9 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 7 8 6 , 1 2 5 L . E d . 2 d 4 6 9 (19 9 3 ). H yundai ar gues that , beca us e thi s evi dence w as unre l i abl e, i tcoul d nothave be en r el i ed upon t o supportt he j ury ver di ct . T her ef or e, al though H yundai pr es ent s thi s i s s ue as a s uf f i ci encyof
- the- evi dence ar gum ent , i ti s , i n f act , att acki ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of the expe r tt es t i m ony. ¶1 3 . M i ssi ssipp i R u le of E v iden ce 7 0 2 , w h ich g o v ern s the ad m issi b il ity o f ex p ert op i nions, provides: I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orother speci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof factt o u nd ers t and the ev i den ce o r to d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an exper tby know l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y ther et o i n the f

or m of an opi ni on orotherw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci entf act s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s t he productof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) the w i tnes s has appl i ed t he pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o t he f act s of the ca s e. F u rth e rm o re , the e x p e rt m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is o r h e r o p in io n “ is b a se d u p o n sc ien tific
m ethods and pr ocedur es , notuns uppor t ed s pecul at i on. ” U t zv. R unn ing & Rolling T r ucking, I

nc. , 32 So. 3d 450, 457 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng A dco ck v. Miss. T ra n sp . Co m m ’n , 9 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 )). T h is C o u rth as em b rac ed the five , n o n ex clus ive fa ctors announce d by the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n D au bert , 509 U . S. 579: ( 1) w hetherthe expe r t ’ s theory can be orhas been t es t ed; ( 2) w hetherthe theory has been s ubj ect ed t o peerr evi ew and publ i cat i on;

### 7

( 3) the know n orpot ent i al ra t e of er r orof a t echni que ortheory w hen appl i ed; ( 4) the exi s t ence and mai nt enanc e of s t andar ds and contr ol ; and (5 ) th e d e g re e to w h ich th e te c h n iq u e o r th e o ry h a s b e e n g e n e ra lly a c c e p ted in the s ci ent i f

i c comm uni ty. H ill v. Mill s , 26 So. 3d 322, 330 n. 6 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng Mis s . T r ansp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). ¶ 1 4 . A s w ith a ll e v id e n c e , e x p e rt tes tim o n y m u st b e re le v a n t. M .R .E . 4 0 2 . E v id e n c e is
re lev a n t if ith a s “ a n y ten d e n c y to m a k e th e e x iste n c e o f a n y fa c t th a t is o f c o n se q u e n c e to the det erm i nat i on of

the ac t i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i thoutthe evi dence . ” M . R . E . 401. “The t hr es hol d f oradmi s s i bi l i ty i s notgr eat , keepi ng i n m i nd t he f actthatR ul e 401 f

avor s the admi s s i on of

evi dence w hen i thas pr obat i ve val ue. ” U tz , 32 So. 3d at457 ( ci t i ng In v e sto r R e s. S e rv s ., In c . v. Ca to , 1 5 S o . 3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 )). T hus , “[ v] i go r ous cr os s - exami nat i on, pr es ent at i on of contr ary evi dence , and ca r ef ul i ns truct i on on t he bur den of pr oof ar e the tr adi t i onal and appr opr i at e m eans of att acki ng s haky butadmi s s i bl e evi dence . ” D au bert , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 5 . A
. H yu nd ai w aived i t

s D aubert obj ect i ons as t o W ebb and D r . B ur t on by f ail i ngt o m ake co ntem

po raneo us ob

j ect i on s. ¶15. A s an i ni t i al m att er , the pl ai nt i ff s ar gue t hat H yundai di d not pr es erve t hi s err orf or ap p ea l be ca u se “ n o p rop er D au bert chal l enges w er e made pr i ort o ordur i ng tr i al . ” H yundai
conc e de s tha ti tn e ve rs ou gh ta p r e tr i a l e xc l us i on o f the p l a i nt i f

f s ’ e xp e r tt e s t i mony, but
a rg u e s th a t i t objec ted to th a t tes tim o n y d u rin g trial a n d th a t itra ise d th e re liab ili ty iss u e in

### 8

i t s m ot i on f

ora di r ect ed ver di ctand i n i t s pos t - tr i al m ot i on f orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng t he
v e rd ict, th u s p re se rv in g th e iss u e fo r a p p e a l. ¶1 6 . A lth o u g h a pre tr ial m o tio n a n d h e a rin g c h a llen g in g th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f ex p ert o p in io n s m a y in s o m e , if n o t m o st, c a se s b e a p ru d e n t p ra c tice , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t th is is n o t th e e x c lu s iv e m e a n s o f m o u n tin g c h a lle n g e s to su c h te s tim o n y . E dm o n d s v . S ta te , 955 So. 2d 787, 792 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Mil lerv. Baker I

m plem ent Co. , 4 3 9 F .3 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 2 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); N

el s on v. T enn. G as P i

peline Co. , 2 4 3 F .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 )). T h is C our thas quot ed w i th appr oval the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s pr onou ncem entthat “[ t ] he tr i al courtm us thave the s ame ki nd of l at i tude i n deci di ng how to test an ex p ert’s
r el i abi l i ty, and t o deci de w hetherorw hen s peci al bri ef i ng orotherpr ocee di ngs ar e nee ded t o invest i gate r el i ab il ity , a s i tenjoys w hen i tdecides w hetherornotthatexpert ’ s r el evant t est i m ony i s r el i abl e. ” E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at792 ( quot i ng Kum ho T ir e Co. v. Car m i chael , 5 2 6 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 5 2 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 11 6 7 , 1 4 3 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 8 ( 1 9 9 9 ) (e m p h a sis in
or i gi nal ) ) . T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tw enton t o s ay: O uropi ni on i n Jo in er m akes i tcl earthata courtof appeal s i s t o appl y an a b u s e -o f- d isc re tio n sta n d a rd w h e n it “re v iew [s] a tria l co u rt’s d e c isio n to admi torexcl ude expe r tt es t i m ony. ” Thats t andar d a ppl i es a s m uch t o the tr i al c o u rt ’s d e c isio n s a b o u t h o w to d e ter m in e re liab ili ty a s to its u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n . O th e rw ise , th e tria l ju d g e w o u ld lac k th e d isc re tio n a ry a u th o rity neede d t o both avoi d unnece s s ary “r el i abi l i ty” pr ocee di ngs i n or di nary cas es w her e the r el i abi l i ty of an expe r t ’ s m ethods i s prope r l y t aken f orgr ant ed, and t o r equi r e appr opr i at e pr ocee di ngs i n the l es s us ual orm or e compl ex ca s es w here cause for quest i on i ng the ex pert ’s rel i abil i ty ari ses. Ku m h o T

ire , 526 U . S. 137 at152 ( di s cus s i ng G en. E lec. Co. v. Joiner , 522 U . S. 136, 138- 3 9 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 5 1 2 , 1 3 9 L . E d . 2 d 5 0 8 (19 9 7 )).

### 9

¶17. W hi l e the tr i al j udge has di s cr et i on w i th r egar d t o w hen and how t o deci de w hether
an expert ’ s t es t i m ony i s s uf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e t o be he ar d by a j ury, thi s doe s notel i m i nat e the
r equi r ementt hatt he party oppos i ng t he evi dence m ake a t i m el y obj ect i on t o i t s bei ng a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e . M .R .E . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ). M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 1 0 3 p ro v id e s, in
re lev a n t p a rt, th a t E rr ormay notbe pr edi cat ed upon a rul i ng w hi ch admi t s orexcl udes evi dence unl es s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof the party i s af

f ect ed, and . . . [ i ] n cas e t he rul i ng i s one admi t t i ng evi dence , a t i m el y obj ect i on orm ot i on t o s tr i ke appe ar s of r ecor d, s t at i ng the s peci f i c gr ound of

obj ect i on, i f

the s peci f

i c gr ound w as not a p p a re n t fro m th e c o n tex t. T h is r u le is m e re ly c o d ifica tio n o f o u r lo n g sta n d in g c a se la w to th e e ffe c t th a t th e fa ilu re to
m a k e a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n to th e ev id e n c e w a iv e s th e issu e o n ap p e a l. S e e e .g ., D ep’t o f Hu m an S ervs. v. Moo re , 6 3 2 S o . 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); Mis s . State H i ghw ay Com m ’n v. R ober t

s on , 350 So. 2d 1348, 1350 ( M i s s . 1977) . “O bj ect i ons m us tbe made at the t i m e of

f er ed i n or dert o obj ectt o evi dence vi a appe al . ” Moo re , 632 So. 2d at933 ( ci t i ng Johnson v. Far

go , 6 0 4 S o . 2 d 3 0 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); A nders on v. Jaeger , 317 So. 2d 902, 907 (M is s . 1 9 7 5 ); M .R .E . 1 0 3 (a )( 1 )) . See al s o R ober t

s on , 350 S o. 2 d at1350 ( ci t i ng L ake v. H ar r ington , 2 1 0 M iss. 7 4 , 4 8 S o . 2 d 8 4 5 (19 5 0 )). ¶18 . In the present case, al l three of the plai nti ff s’ exp ert s w ere dep osed m on ths b efo re tr i al . W i th the exce pt i on of W ebb’ s t es t i m ony, w hi ch w i l l be di s cus s ed bel ow , H yundai does notar gue thatthei ropi ni ons change d attr i al . T hus , H yundai w as w el l aw ar e of the s ubs t ance o f th e p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt tes tim o n y a n d h a d s u ffic ien t o p p o rtu n ity to c h a llen g e its re liab ili ty before tri al . Inst ead, H yu nd ai w ai t ed u nti l the tr i al w as un derw ay to m ake it s D au bert obj ect i on s.

### 10

¶19. R egar di ng W ebb, H yun dai m ov ed t o st ri ke his tes t i m on y before tr i al , noton a ques t i on of

i t s r el i abi l i ty, butbeca us e of t he pl ai nt i f

f’ s fa i l ur e t i m el y t o not i f y the def endant of a chan ge in this ex p ert’s ca lcul at i on s. Itw as not unt i l aft er W ebb had l eftthe w i tness sta n d th a t H y u n d a i m o v e d to s trik e h is te stim o n y b a se d o n its a lleg e d fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

E vi dence 702 and D au bert . T he tr i al j udge r ef us ed t o gr antthe mot i on, s t at i ng thatthe “c ow [ w as ] outof the bar n. ” I n otherw or ds , the tr i al j udge r i ght l y r ef us ed t o s tr i ke W ebb ’ s t es t i m ony beca us e the def endanthad f

ai l ed t o m ake a cont empora neous o b je c tio n a n d th e te s tim o n y w a s a lr e a d y b e fo re th e ju ry . Moo re , 632 So. 2d at933. W ebb had t es t i f i ed on di r ect , cr os s - exami nat i on, and r edi r ectbef or e H yundai obj ect ed and moved t o s tr i ke hi s t es t i m ony. T hus , w e do notf i nd thatthe tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on by al l ow i ng the j ury t o cons i derhi s opi ni on. ¶20. A s f

orD r . Burt on, H yundai di d notobj ectt o hi s t es t i m ony as unr el i abl e unt i l i t m oved the c o u rtfor a d ir ec ted v erd ictat th e c lose o f the p lai n ti ffs’ ca se-in-c h ief. A s w ith W eb b ’s t es t i m ony, w e cannotconcl ude t hatt he t r i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on by r ef us i ng t o s tr i ke the t es t i m ony of

D r . B ur t on w i thouta cont empora neous obj ect i on. B
. The tr i alj udge di d not abus e his dis cr et i on by f i ndi ng Mundo’s t es t i m ony s uf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e. ¶21. Fi nal l y, w e cons i derthe t es t i m ony of the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ de s i gn engi neer , J ames M undo. A ft er M u n d o h ad test if ied a b o u t his qu alificati o n s, b u t befo re h e h ad g iven h is ex p ert opi ni ons , H yundai ar gued t o the tr i al courtthatM undo w as notqua l i f i ed t o r enderopi ni ons aboutthe Excel ’ s des i gn. T he tr i al j udge overrul ed the obj ect i on. M undo then t es t i f i ed
r egar di ng hi s met hodol ogi es . H yundai a gai n obj ect ed, thi s t i m e ar gui ng thathi s opi ni on w as

### 11

notbas ed on “r el i abl e pr i nci pl es a nd met hods ” as r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 702. T he tr i al j udge hea r d ext ens i ve ar gum ent s and ul t i m at el y rul ed thatM undo’ s t es t i m ony w as s uf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e t o go bef or e t he j ury. T her ef

or e, i n contr as tt o i t s bel at ed obj ect i ons t o the t es t i m oni es of

W ebb and D r . B ur t on, w e f i nd, as the tri al judge did, thatH yundai t i m el y r ai s ed a D au bert obj ect i on t o M undo’ s expertt es t i m ony. ¶ 2 2 . M u n d o tes tified th a t th e E x c e l w a s n o t p ro p e rly d e sig n e d a n d th a t itw a s n o t p ro p e rly
m anuf actur ed i n thatthe w el di ng of the E xcel di d notmeetthe m anuf actur er ’s des i gn sp e c ifica tio n s. M u n d o als o o ffe re d an alte rn a tiv e d e sig n o f th e A -p ill a r, a b e a m th a t co n n e c ts the r oof of the ca rt o i t s body on ei thers i de of the w i nds hi el d. H e tes t i fi ed thathi s des i gn w oul d make the c a rs i gn i f i c a nt l y s tr on ge ra nd tha ti mpl e ment i ng thi s d e s i gn woul d no tbe
c o st-p ro h ib iti v e to H y u n d a i. ¶23. H yundai ar gues on app eal thatM un do ’s o pini ons w er e unr el i abl e bec aus e: ( 1) he
as s um ed thatthe Excel w as def ect i ve beca us e i ts epar at ed i n the cr as h; ( 2) M undo’ s opi ni ons di d notm eetthe r equi r ement s of the M i s s i s s i ppi Pr oductL i abi l i ty A ct( M PL A ) ; ( 3) he bas ed hi s al t ernat i ve des i gn on a s i ngl e componentof the vehi cl e us i ng a c om put erpr ogr am ra ther than “r eal
- w or l d t es t i ng”; and ( 4) hi s opi ni ons thatcert ai n w el ds w er e def ect i ve w er e not suff i ci ent t o est abli sh a “m at eri al ” dev i at i on fr om the m anu facturer ’s speci fi cat i on s.

( 1) Mundo’s as s um

pt i on thats epar at i on is pers e def ect i ve ¶24. H yundai f

i r s tt akes i s s ue w i th M undo’ s s t at ementthat“ca r s ar en’ ts uppos e [ s i c] t o be br eaki ng i nt o pi ece s . ” M undo conce ded thata s uf f i ci ent l y s ever e cr as h coul d caus e any c ar t o s epar at e, buthe opi ned thatthi s acc i dentw as an “a ver age, m i ddl e- of
- the- r oad, comm onp lace typ e a cc iden t. ” E ssen ti all y , H y u n d a i fau lt s M u n d o for rely ing o n W eb b ’s

### 12

re c o n stru c tio n a n d W e b b ’s o p in io n s re g a rd in g th e se v e rity o f th e c ra sh . T o fin d e rro r o n th is poi ntw oul d r equi r e us t o cons i derthe r el i abi l i ty of W ebb’ s t es t i m ony. A s di s cus s ed above , H yundai di d notr ai s e a t i m el y obj ect i on t o the r el i abi l i ty of W ebb’ s expertt es t i m ony, and, ther ef or e, the tr i al j udge di d noterri n a dm i t t i ng W ebb’ s t es t i m ony. B eca us e thi s ar gum ent i s , i n actual i ty, anotheratt empt t o att ack the val i di ty of W ebb’ s t es t i m ony, w e dec l i ne t o f i nd any err orr es pect i ng thi s i s s ue.

( 2) Mis s is s i

ppiP r oduct

Li abi l i t y Act ¶25. T o s uppor ta def ect i ve des i gn cl ai m , the pl ai nt i f f m us tpr ove that (i) T h e m a n u fa c tu re r o r se ller k n e w , o r in lig h t o f re a so n a b ly a v a ilab le know l edge ori n the exer ci s e of r eas onabl e car e s houl d have know n, aboutthe dangerthatcaus ed the damage f orw hi ch r ecove ry i s s ought ; and, (ii) T h e p ro d u c t fa iled to fu n c tio n a s e x p e c ted a n d th e re e x iste d a fe a sib le des i gn al t ernat i ve thatw oul d have t o a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty pr event ed the h a rm . A fe a sib le d e sig n a ltern a tiv e is a d e sig n th a t w o u ld h a v e to a re a so n a b le probab i l i ty p revent ed the harm w i tho ut i m pair i ng the u t i l i ty, useful ness, pract i cal i ty o r desi rabi l i ty o f the p roduct t o u ser s or consum ers . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 63( f ) ( i )
- ( i i ) ( R ev. 2002) . I n otherw or ds , the dange rpr es ent ed by t he de f e c tmus tb e r e a s on a bl y f or e s e e a bl e , a nd a f

e a s i bl e d e s i gn a l t e rna t i ve mus thave
e x is te d . ¶26 . H yun dai’ s ar gu m ent on t his i ssue i s that M un do neverr ef ut ed H yundai ’ s evi dence that the de s i gn of

the Exc e l metore xc e e de d the s t a t e of the a r tf

ors ub c ompa c t s i n 1 993. H o w e v e r, M u n d o tes tified th a t th e d e sig n m e th o d s h e u se d w e re a v a ilab le in 1 9 9 3 . W h ile H y u n d ai pre sen ted e x p ert t esti m o n y to the co n tr ary , w e d o n o t f ind erro r i n the tri al j u d g e’s
c o n c lu sio n th a t th is d iffe re n c e o f o p in io n c re a ted a fa c t q u e stio n fo r th e ju ry a n d w a s n o t a bas i s f orexcl us i on.

### 13 ( 3) A l t er nat i ve A-

pi l lar ¶27. N ext , H yundai cr i t i ci zes M undo’ s al t ernat i ve des i gn beca us e i t w as “an unva l i dat ed comput ers i m ul at i on of

a s i ngl e component . ” M undo us ed a comput er - ai ded des i gn pr ogr am t o cr eat e a s i m ul at i on of hi s al t ernat i ve des i gn t o the A -pi l l ar . A l though the comput er s i m ul at i on of

M undo’ s desi gn al t ernat i ve w as the ca r ’ s A
- pi l l arr atherthan the ent i r e f r ame, he t es t i f i ed atl ength abouthow hi s desi gn w oul d have i ncl uded t he str engtheni ng of w el ds “thr oughoutthe cage s tructur e. ” Thus, contr ary t o H yundai ’ s as s ert i ons , M undo’ s t es t i m ony in d ica ted th a t h is d e sig n a ltern a tiv e w a s n o t li m ited to a sin g le c o m p o n e n t. ¶28. H yundai a l s o a r gues thatM undo’ s opi ni ons a bouthi s a l t ernati ve d esi gn w ere not
r el i abl e w i thout“r eal
- w or l d t es t i ng. ” I n otherw or ds , H yundai ar gues thatM undo w as r equi r ed t o cr eat e a model of hi s al t ernat i ve des i gn and per f or m s tr ength t es t s on the model i n or dert o val i dat e hi s opi ni on. H yundai does notar gue thatthe comput erpr ogr am M undo
u sed w as so m eh o w fl aw ed . R athe r, w e are a sk ed to h o ld th at c o m p u ter si m u lat ion s alo n e a re n o t su ffic ien t to su p p o rt e x p e rt t e stim o n y , w h ich w e d e c lin e to d o . W e a re n o t p re p a re d to sa y tha t an ex p ert m u st p h y sicall y bu il d a m o d el of his al terna ti v e d esig n i n ord e r to demonstr at e i t s e f

f i cac y. M undo’ s ut i l i zat i on of a comput erpr ogr am forthatpurpos e goes t o the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty of s uch evi dence and nott o i t s admi s s i bi l i ty. ( 4) D ef ect i ve W eldi ng ¶2 9 . L astl y , H y u n d ai c ri ti cize s the m etho d M u n d o u sed to form h is op inion ab o u t th e ca r’s
w el ds . T o s uppor thi s theory thatthe w el di ng w as def ect i ve, M undo poi nt ed t o ni net een w el ds thathad come apar tdur i ng the cr as h, al l of w hi ch he c ons i der ed t o be def ect i ve. H yundai cr i t i ci zes M undo’ s m ethodol ogy, ar gui ng thatther e ar e tho usand s of w el ds on a

### 14

vehi cl e, and H yundai ’ s w el di ng s peci f i cat i ons al l ow a 10% m ar gi n of err ori n w el di ng. H y u n d a i n o t e s th a tn i n e t e e n o u to f th r e e o rf

o u rth o u s a n d d o n o ta m o u n tt o m o r e th a n 1 0 %. T he pl ai nt i f

f s def end M undo’ s m ethodol ogy, ar gui ng thathe s i m pl y w as us i ng a s ampl i ng tec h n iq u e , an d H y u n d a i d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t sa m p lin g is a v iab le s c ien tific m e th o d . A s w ith M u n d o ’s alt ern ati v e d esig n t esti m o n y , H y u n d ai’s arg u m en ts on this po int w ere for the jury ’s
reso luti o n , an d w e c an n o t say that the tri al j u d g e a b u sed h is discreti o n b y fi n d ing M u n d o ’s t es t i m ony s uf

f i ci ent l y r el i abl e f

orpurpos es of

M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

E vi dence 702. I I . H y unda ii s e ntitle d to a ne w tr ial

b e c aus e t

he p lainti

f f s f aile d tim e l

y and prop erl y to disclose ch an ges to W ebb ’s calculation s. ¶30. H yundai ar gues that i t i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al beca us e i t w as ambushed by change s t o W ebb’ s opi ni on. O ne of W ebb’ s m ai n cont ent i ons w as that , had the E xcel r emai ned i nt act , the vehi cl e w oul d have e xper i ence d a d el t a-v of no m or e than thi r ty- f

i ve mi l es per hour . H yundai depose d W ebb on D ece m ber18, 2007, atw hi ch t i m e W ebb gave a det ai l ed expl anat i on of

hi s cal cul at i ons . O n February 6, 2008, W ebb s i gned an e rr a ta s heet
conce rni ng hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony, changi ng f ourvar i abl es thathe purpor t edl y had us ed t o m ake hi s cal cul at i ons . M os tnot abl y, W ebb change d t he angl e of the Excel f

r om tw entytw o degr ees t o f

or ty- f ourdegr ees an d i ncreased the cl os i ng s peed of the Excel f

r om s i xt yei ghtm i l es perhourt o s eventy- ei ghtm i l es perhour. D es pi t e thes e cha nges , W ebb di d not al t erhi s ul t i m at e conc l us i on thatthe ca r w ou l d hav e sus t ai ned a de l t a- v of onl y thi r ty- f

i ve m iles p e r h o u r h a d it rem a in e d in tac t. ¶31. A ttr i al , W ebb t es t i f i ed aboutthe e rr a ta s heet , cl ai m i ng thathe had t o change s ever al
v a ria b les b e c a u se h e re a lize d a fte r h e h a d b e e n d e p o se d th a t h e h a d m a d e so m e m ista k e s in

### 15

his i nit i al anal ysi s. Iti s und i sputed that W ebb ’s e rr a ta sh ee t w as n o t m ea n t t o co rrect errors
m ade by the courtr eport erort o cl ar i f y hi s t es t i m ony. O n the s heetit sel f, W ebb l i s t ed the
re a s o n fo r t h e c h a n g e s a s “ ra n g e n o t a s k e d .” ¶32. H yundai m oved t o s tr i ke W ebb’ s t es t i m ony, al l egi ng that i t had nev er recei ved the
e rr a ta s heetand thatthes e cha nges w er e a s urpr i s e. I n r es pons e, the pl ai nt i f f s ar gued that the cha nges w er e notm at er i al beca us e they di d notal t erW ebb’ s ul t i m at e conc l us i on. T he p lai n ti ffs also p rod u ce d a lett er a d d resse d to o n e o f H y u n d ai’s att o rne y s a n d d ated F eb rua ry 11 , 20 08 , t o d em on strat e t hat they had forw arded W ebb ’s er r ata s heett o the def endant . T he tr i al courthear d ext ens i ve ar gum ent s on the i s s ue and de ni ed the def endant ’ s m ot i on. ¶3 3. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr oc e du r e 26( f ) ( 1) r equi r es l i t i gant s t o s uppl ement i nt err ogat ory r es pons es i n r egar d t o “the i dent i ty of e ach per s on expec t ed t o be ca l l ed as an expertw i tnes s att r i al , t he subj ectm att eron w hi ch t he per s on i s expect ed t o t es t i f y, and the
s ubs t ance of

the t es t i m ony. ” The rul e al s o i m pos es a duty on the p art i es t o am end a pr i or r es pons e w hen “the party know s thatthe r es pons e, though corr ectw hen made, i s no l onger t rue and the ci r cumst ance s ar e s uch thata f ai l ur e t o amend t he r es pons e i s i n s ubs t ance a know i ng conce al m ent . ” M . R . C . P. 26( f ) ( 2) ( B ) . T he f

ai l ure s eas onabl y t o s uppl ementor amend a r es pons e i s a di s covery vi ol at i on that m ay w ar r ants anct i ons , i ncl udi ng excl us i on o f e v id e n c e . E ko rn es-D u n ca n v. R an kin Med. Ctr. , 8 0 8 S o . 2 d 9 5 5 , 9 5 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). R u lin g s o n d is c o v e ry v io la tio n s w il l n o t b e o v e rt u rn e d a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . I d. ( ci t i ng G ra

y v. S ta te , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 5 3 , 6 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶34 . T he p l ai nti ff

s ar gu e t hat they had no du ty to am end theirdis cov ery r espon ses becau se thei rFebruary 11, 2008, l ett erde m ons tr at es thatH yundai w as pr ovi ded the e rr a ta s heetand

### 16

ther ef or e had not i ce of

the cha nges . T he tr i al j udge di d notmake a f actual f i ndi ng as t o w hen H y u n d ai be ca m e a w are o f th e c o n tents o f W eb b ’s e rr a ta sh e e t, bu t su c h a f in d in g is
unnece ssary and i r r el evantt o ouranal ys i s . E ven i f H yundai di d r ece i ve the e rr a ta sh e e t, s i m pl y gi vi ng the def

endantthi s documentdi d notr el i eve the pl ai nt i f f s of thei rdut i es under M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 2 6(f

). T he purpos e of

an e rr a ta s heeti s t o corr ect sc riv e n e r’s e rro rs o r p ro v id e m in o r c lar ifica tio n ; itis n o t a m e a n s o f m a k in g m a ter ial,
s u b s ta n tiv e c h a n g e s to a w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y . S e e e .g ., G ar c ia v. Pueb lo Countr y Club , 399 F . 3 d 12 3 3 , 12 4 2 n.5 (10 th C ir . 20 0 2 ) ( “A d ep o sit ion is no t a t ak e h o m e e x am ination . ”) If a
w i tnes s change s hi s t es t i m ony i n a m annerthatconf l i ct s w i th pr i ordi s covery r es pons es , t he
s ponsori ng party has a duty underR ul e 26( f ) s eas onabl y and f

or m al l y t o amend or
s u p p le m e n t th e re s p o n s e . Choctaw Maid Far m s, Inc. v. H ailey , 822 So . 2d 9 11 , 91 6 (M i ss. 2002) . T hi s i s the r es pons i bi l i t y of t he party orpart i es s pons or i ng the w i tnes s , nott he
res po nsi bil i ty o f the w i tness. ¶35. T he pl ai nt i f

f s ar gue t hatW ebb’ s changes w er e notm at er i al becaus e t hey di d not al t er h is op inion that, h ad the c ar n o t sep ara ted, th e o cc u p an ts w o u ld ha v e ex p erien ce d a d elt a-v o f on ly th irty-fi v e m il es p er ho u r. W e d isag ree . T h e c h an g es in W eb b ’s ca lculati o n s w ere m at er i al change s beca us e they w er e es s ent i al c om ponent s of the bas i s f

orhi s opi ni on. W hen H y u n d a i atte m p ted to c ro ss -e x a m in e W e b b a b o u t h is c a lcu la tio n s, W e b b re fe rre d to h is
e rr a ta s heeta tl eas ts even t i m es t o de m ons tr at e thathe ha d c orr ect ed hi s mi s t akes . I ti s cl ear f r om W ebb’ s t es t i m ony thatthe f i gur es on the e rr a ta sh e e t w e re im p o rt a n t to h is cal cul at i on s. M or eover , w hen H yundai ’ s expert s per f or m ed cr as h t es t i ng, they us ed the f i gur es gi ven by W ebb i n hi s depos i t i on i n an att empt t o r ef ut e W ebb’ s t es t i m ony. W hen

### 17

W ebb ch anged hi s cal cul at i ons , the cr as h t es tus i ng W ebb’ s i ni t i al cal cul at i ons l ost re le v a n c e . ¶36. D es pi t e the pl ai nt i f f s ’ f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th R ul e 26( f ) , the tr i al courtr ef

us ed t o gr ant H yundai any r el i ef

. W e f i nd that , i n doi ng s o, the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on. W e do notcondone tr i al by ambush. H yundai w as ent i t l ed t o f ul l and compl et e di s cl os ur e of t he p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt te stim o n y , a n d n e ith e r th e se p lain tiffs n o r a n y o th e r p a rty lit ig a n t m a y re ly
on a w i tnes s ’ s not at i ons on a depos i t i on e rr a ta sh e e t as a su b sti tu te f o r fo rm a l an d tim e ly
su p p lem e n tatio n . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th a t th is iss u e w a rra n ts re v e rsa l. C oncl usi on ¶3 7. W e hol d tha t H yu nd a i i s no t e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gmen t r e nd e r e d i n i t s f a vo r on appea l b a se d o n th e trial ju d g e ’s a llo w in g th e p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt tes tim o n y (w h ic h H y u n d a i as se rts
w as unr el i abl e) t o be a dduced bef or e the j ury. T hi s i s s ue can be r evi s i t ed on r emand, i n t he
e v e n t th e d e fe n d a n t in terp o se s tim e ly a n d a p p ro p ria te o b jec tio n s. H o w e v e r, itw a s e rro r to
r ef us e r el i ef

t o H yundai i n cons equence of the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ f ai l ur e t o amend t hei rr es pons es regar ding W ebb ’s op i nion un der M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of C i vil P roc ed u re 26(f

). F or these
re a so n s, w e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t an d re m a n d th e c a se fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 3 8 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.