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 6 - CA- 0 0 0 1 8 - S CT L AN I KI A S M I T H, BY HER NE

XT FR I EN D, BET TI E S M I TH; CAM

I LL E CART

ER, BY HER NEXT F RI END, LAR EAT

HA CARTER; AM ORY S CHOOL DI

S T RICT AN D A M OR Y S CHOOL DI S TRICT B OARD OF TRUS TEES v. CHARLESCLE

M ENT d / b / a M & W BUTANE GAS COM PANY, I NC. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 26/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . P AUL S . F UND ERB URK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ONROE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : DAVI D B . M c L AUR I N MI C H A E L A N T H O N Y WI L L I A MS J AS ON L E E S HE L T ON ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: M I CHAEL F . M YERS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY 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 - 10/ 04/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI AZ , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . To d a y w e a r e a s k e d t o f u r th e rc l a r i f

y o u ra p p r o a c h t o e x p e r tt e s t i mon y u n d e rM . R. E. 702. W e hol d t hatpar t i es m us tbe af f or ded an oppor tuni ty t o be hea r d r egar di ng thei rof f er of expe rtt est i m on y. B ecause t hat op po rtun i ty w as notpres ent i n the case athand , w e revers e a n d re m a n d .

### Th e plaintiffs hav e since settledtheir case w ith A morySch oo l District. 1 

### 2

Fa c t s a n d Pr o c e e d i n g s Be l o w ¶ 2 . L a n ik ia S m ith a n d C a m ill e C a rte r w e re rid in g h o m e o n th e ir sc h o o l b u s w h e n it caughtf i r e. W hil e att em pt i ng t o es cape the burni ng bus , both gi r l s w er e s ever el y bur ned. T h rou g h their pa ren ts, th e g irls fi led s u itag ains t A m o ry S ch o o l D istri ct. A m o ry in turn s oughti ndemni ty f

r om C har l es C l ement , w ho as M & W G as C om pany conve r t ed bus es ow ned by A m ory f

r om ga s ol i ne t o pr opane us e. A m ory ar gued thata def ecti n the pr opane 1 gas s ys t em caus ed the f i r e. ¶3. I n s uppor tof

thi s theory of

c aus at i on, A m ory ret ai ned D r. R i chard E . F orbes, an experti n m echa ni cal engi neer i ng, w ho pr ovi ded a f i ve- page a f

f i davi tadvanc i ng hi s theory. C lem e n t filed a m o tio n to strik e the aff id a v it a s in su ffic ien t un d e r o u r re q u ire m e n ts fo r R u le 702 and D au bert , i ncl udi ng count er - ar gum ent s pr of f er ed by hi s ow n expert , al ong w i th a m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t. M . R . E . 7 0 2 ; D au bert v. Merrel

l D ow P h arm aceu ti cals, 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 (1 9 9 3 ). ¶4 . O n O ctob er 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , the tr ial co u rt g ran ted C lem en t’ s m o ti o n to str ike D r. F o rbe s’s a ffid a v it, h o ld in g in a o n e -p a g e o rd e r “ th a t th e o p in io n s e x p re s se d b y D r. F o rb e s in h is a ffid a v it are n o th in g m o re th a n u n su p p o rte d c o n c lu sio n s w h ich a re d e v o id o f a fa c tu a l b a sis an d n o t th e p rod u ct of reliable p ri n ciples a n d m etho d s. ” O n the s am e d ay , the tri al co u rt gr ant ed C l ement ’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , fi ndi ng t hatt her e w as “no genui ne i s s ue of m at eri al f

actas t o caus at i on, ” as the pl ai nt i f f s coul d notof

f ercr edi bl e expe r tt es t i m ony

### Th e dissent cites S h e ffie ld v. G o o dw in , 740 So. 2d 854 (M i s s . 1999), and P al m erv. 2 B iloxiR egional

Medical Center , I nc. , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ), in su p p o rt o f its a r g u me n t s . Howev e r , th o s e c a s e s w e r e de c i d e d pr e v i o u s t o ou ra d o p t i o n of a r e v i s e d M . R. E. 7 0 2 in 2 0 0 3 a n d d o n o t im p a c t th e p o st- D au bert - cent er ed anal ys i s of the opportuni ty of 

### 3 as t o caus at i on. T he tr i al co urtlat erdeni ed mot i ons t o r econs i derthe or der s f i l ed by the p la in tif fs a n d d e n ie d a re q u e s t to s u b m it a n e w a ff id a v it b y D r. F o rb e s . ¶ 5 . A m o ry , S m ith , an d C a rte r a p p e a l th e v a rio u s d e c isio n s o f th e trial c o u rt; w e n e e d o n ly e x a m in e th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r strik in g th e a ffid a v it. D i s cus s i on ¶6 . W e e x am ine a trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to allow ev iden ce , inclu d ing p roffere d ex p ert te s tim o n y , u n d e r a n “ a b u s e o f d is c re tio n ” s ta n d a rd . See W e b b v . B ra sw e ll , 930 So. 2d 387, 397 ( M i s s . 2006) . H er e, t he tr i al courtstruck the expertaff i davi tof D r . Forbes – and acc or di ngl y, any expe r topi ni on he mi ghthave of f er ed r egar di ng caus at i on of the s chool bus fi re – after a rev iew o f his affidav it , a reb u tt al affi d av itb y C lem en t’ s ex p ert, an d a su m m ary j udgm enthear i ng. A tthe hea r i ng, couns el f orthe pl ai nt i f

f s ar gued that“D r . Forbes has not b e e n g iv e n a n o p p o rt u n ity to fu rt h e r e x p o u n d ” u p o n h is s c ie n tif ic th e o ry a s to c a u s a tio n . ¶7. A s w e not ed i n E dm o n d s v . S ta te , 95 5 S o . 2d 78 7 , 79 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ), “th e b a sic r equi r ementunderthe l aw i s thatthe part i es have a n ‘ oppor tunity t o be hea r d bef or e the [ tr i al ] courtm akes it s deci s i on. ’ ” I d . ( quot i ng G ro u

p He a lth P la n , In c . v. P h ili p Mo rr is U SA, I nc. , 3 44 F. 3d 753, 761 n. 3 ( 8th C i r . 2003) ) . O uri nqui ry m us tther ef or e det erm i ne w hetherthe par t i es had an opportuni ty t o be hea r d. B eca us e w e ar e s t i l l devel opi ng our anal ys i s of

expertt es t i m ony af

t eradopt i ng the D a u b e rt s t andar d, w e w i l l l ook t o ot her j ur i s di ct i ons f

orgui dance on t hi s i s s ue. 2p a rt ie s to b e h e a rd re g a rd in g th e irp ro ff e r o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y . 

### 4 ¶8. “[ I ] n l i m i ne hear i ngs ar e gene r al l y r ecomm ended pr i ort o D a u b e rt d e te rm in a tio n s .” G r oup Heal

th P lan, I

nc. v. P hili

p Mor r is U

SA , I nc. , 344 F. 3d at761 n. 3 ( 8th C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng P adil

las v. Stork- G am co, I

nc. , 186 F. 3d 4 12 , 418 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ) . I n l i m i ne h e a rin g s a re a lso th e “ m o st e ffic ien t p ro c e d u re ” a trial c o u rt c a n u se w h e n p re se n ted w ith c o m p le x e v id e n c e . U

nite d State s v. D owning , 7 5 3 F .2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 4 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). ¶9. A n in l i m ine h ea ri n g reg ard ing e x pertt est i m on y is al so a cau t i ou s approach best su ited fo r th e c o m p a ra b le c o m p lex iti e s o f o u r p o st- Fr ye R ul e 702. Perhaps bef or e D au bert , s uch a de t erm i nat i on coul d be m ade w i thouta he ar i ng, butthe cont i nual evol ut i on of s ci ence and the gr ow i ng i ntr i cac i es of l i t i gat i on m andat e thatw e t ake the tr i al court ’ s r ol e as

“ g a te k e e p e r” s e ri o u s ly . See K ni ght v. K irby I nland Mar ine I

nc. , 4 8 2 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 5 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (tria l “c o u rts h a v e a n im p o rta n t ro le a s g a tek e e p e rs in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r to a d m it e x p e rt t e stim o n y ” ). T h e re fo re , the trial “ c o u rts m u st car ef ul l y anal yz e the s tudi es on w hi ch expert s r el y f

orthei ropi ni ons bef

or e admi tt i ng thei rt es t i m ony. ” I d . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). A hear i ng i s s i m pl y t he bes tm ethod of guar di ng the admi s s i on of expertt es t i m ony. ¶10 . Y et as E dm on ds not ed, i n s om e cas es “a cour ti s notre qui r ed t o hol d an ac tual hear i ng t o compl y w i th D a u b e rt. ” I d . ( quot i ng G r e e nwel

l v. Boatwri

ght , 18 4 F . 3 d 49 2 , 49 8 (6th C ir . 1999) ) . C om m on s ens e i nf or m s us thati n s om e ca s es an expe r tm ay be dr as t i cal l y uns ui t ed t o t es t i f y; f ore xampl e, f

ora l ack of

s t andi ng w i thi n the pr of f er ed f i el d o r a di s cr edi t ed backgr ound. Y ett hatl ack of a f or m al i zed i nqui ry m us tb e b al ance d w i th s om e other

### 5

“opportuni ty t o be hea r d” f orthe part i es . Sever al f eder al c i r cui t s ha ve addr es s ed the i s s ue w hen di s tr i ctcourt s have r ef us ed t o hol d a D a u b e rt h e a ri n g . ¶11. I n one E i ghth C i r cui t cas e w her e ther e w as no hear i ng, the part i es w er e s t i l l af f or ded an “a n adequa t e oppor tuni ty t o be hea r d ” bec aus e they “w er e al l ow ed t o exce ed the norm al p ag e li m it s in the irb ri efs o n [th e] m o tio n fo r s u m m ary jud g m en t, an d the d istri ct co u rt p e rm itt e d [th e n o n m o v a n t] to p re se n t w ritten su b m iss io n s b y [it s e x p e rt] a n d o th e r e x p e rts i n s uppor tof

thei rar gum ent . ” G r oup Heal th P lan, I

n c. v. P hili

p Mor r is U

SA , I nc. , 344 F . 3 d 7 5 3 , 7 6 1 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶ 1 2 . S im ila rl y , in o n e S ix th C ir c u it c a s e , N el s on v. Tenness ee G as P i peline Co. , a di s tr i ct courtdi d notconducta D a u b e rt h e a ri n g . N el s on , 2 4 3 F .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), c e rt. deni ed , 534 U . S. 822, 122 S . C t . 5 6, 151 L . E d. 2d 25 ( 2001) . H ow ever , ther e w as an oppor tuni ty t o be hear d be caus e “[ t ] he admi s s i bi l i ty of the t es t i m ony of

[ the expe r t s ] under D a u b e rt w as f

ul l y br i ef ed by the part i es , ” and “ i t[ w as ] cl earf r om the ext ens i ve r ecor d and the magi s tr at e j udge’ s opi ni on t hatt her e w as an ade quat e bas i s f r om w hi ch t o det erm i ne the r el i abi l i ty and val i di ty of the expe r t s ’ opi ni ons . ” I d. ¶1 3. T he Fi r s tCi r c ui te xa mi ne d the pr ob l e ms wi th p ul l i ng the tr i gg e re a r l y o n D au bert , n o tin g th a t “[t]h e fa c t th a t D a u b e rt can be us ed i n connec t i on w i th s um m ary j udgm ent m ot i ons doe s notmean thati ts houl d be us ed pr of l i gat el y. ” Cor tes -I

r i z ar r y v. Cor por acion Insu lar D e Segur os , 111 F. 3d 184, 188 ( 1s tC i r . 1997) . “[ G ] i ven the compl ex f actual i nqui ry r equi r ed by D au bert , court s w i l l be har d- pr es s ed i n al l butthe mostcl ear cutcas es to g a u g e th e re liab ili ty o f e x p e rt p ro o f o n a tru n c a te d r e c o rd ,” a n d so th e F irst C irc u it conc l ud e d tha t“ [ b] e c a us e the s umm a ry j ud gmen tp r oc e s s d oe s n otc on f orm w e l l t o t he

### 6

d isc ip lin e th a t D a u b e rt i m pos es , the D a u b e rt r egi m e s houl d be empl oyed onl y w i th gr eat car e and c i r cumspec t i on atthe s um m ary j udgm ents t age. ” I d. ¶14. U nl i ke the f

actpatt ern i n E dm on ds or the cas es ci t ed above, the part i es i n the cas e at hand di d nothave “an opportuni ty t o be hea r d” r egar di ng thei rexpertt es t i m ony. U l t i m at el y, w hi l e “[ t ] o excl ude evi dence i s w i thi n pur vi ew of the court. . . d et erm i nati on s t o excl ude evi dence bef

or e the cha l l engi ng party has an opportuni ty t o devel op the r ecor d ar e unf ai rand i m pr oper . ” I

nline Con necti on Cor

p. v. A O L T

im e W ar nerI nc. , 472 F. Supp. 2d 604, 611- 12 (D . D el. 2 0 0 7 ) ( interna l qu o tat ion an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h ere fore , the a ffi d av ito f D r. Forbes w as i m pr oper l y s truck by the tr i al c our t , a nd the or dergr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent reg ard ing the c au sati o n o f th e sc h o o l bu s fi re w as a lso in e rror. ¶15. Pr i ort o any D a u b e rt d eterm ination o r o ther de cisi o n reg ard ing the pro ffer o f ex p ert evi dence , t he par t i es m us tbe af f or ded t he oppor tuni ty t o be hear d. W e gene r al l y r ecomm end that the tri al co u rtco n d u ct an in l im ine h ea ri n g spe cifi ca ll y on th e su b ject, as this pro ce d u re w il l r esu ltin fu ll b ri efing an d a rg u m en t by the p arti es re g ard ing the p rop o sed ex p ert test im o n y . T h is w il l no t on ly as sistthe tri al co u rtin it s fun cti o n as e v iden ti ary g atek ee p er; itw il l pro v ide a fu ll er re co rd for an a p p ell ate co u rtsh o u ld th e p arti es c o n testthe e v iden ti ary rul i ng . W hil e an in l i m i ne h eari ng m ay n ot be necessary i n al l cases, itd oes p rovi de the m ost eff i ci ent m ann er of

add res si ng the is sue i n m any cases.

C oncl usi on ¶1 6. B eca us e t he A m or y Sch oo l D i s tr i c t w a s no t a l l owed a n op po r tun i ty t o be he a r d a s cont empl at ed by M . R . E . 702 and D au bert , w e r ever s e the tr i al court ’ s or ders tr i ki ng the a ffid av ito f D r. F o rbe s. A cc o rdin g ly, w e a lso rev erse the tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary

### 7

j udgm entt o C l ementon the s ubj ectof caus at i on. W e r emand the cas e f orpr ocee di ngs that w ill p ro v id e th e p a rt ie s w ith th e o p p o rt u n ity to b e h e a rd . ¶ 1 7 . REVERSED AND REM AND ED . W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y A N D G R A V E S , J J ., C O N C U R . R A N D O L P H , J ., CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N R ESULT . S M I TH, C. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND L A M A R , JJ. S M I T H, CH I E F J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶18. I n m y vi ew , the tr i al court pr oper l y s truck the appel l ant ’ s expert af f i davi t dur i ng t he s um m ary j udgm enthear i ng as i tdi d notcompl y w i th the tw o- pr ong t es ts etouti n Mis s is s i ppi T ran sportati o n Com m ission v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 4 (M iss 20 0 3 ). T h e e x p ert’s af f i da vi tw a s i na dmi s s i bl e be c a us e i tw a s mer e un s up po r t e d s pe c ul a t i on , s ub j e c t i ve be l i ef and con cl usi on s w i tho ut any b asi s provi ded by rel i able s ci enti fi c m et ho ds and proced ures. T he maj or i ty depart s f

r om a cons i s t entpr ece dentes t abl i s hed by McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 3 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); E dm o n d s v . S ta te , 9 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 1 -9 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ); W e b b v. B ra sw e ll , 9 3 0 S o . 2 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 6 -9 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Hubbard v. W ansley , 95 1 S o. 2d 95 1, 95 4-56 (M i ss. 2 0 0 7 ); S h e

ffie ld v. G o o dw in , 740 So. 2d 854, 856 ( M i s s . 1999) ; and P a lm e r v . B ilox i R e g 'l Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). A c c o rd in g ly , I d is s e n t. ¶1 9 . W h en determ i ning the ad m i ssi bil i ty o f evi den ce, i ncludi ng exp ertt est im o n y , the co u rt is b o u n d b y a n a b u s e -o f- d is c re tio n sta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . W ebb, 930 So. 2d at396- 97 ( ci t i ng McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 ). “ T h e tri a l j u d g e as su m e s th e c ritica l ro le a s a g a tek e e p e r in a s s e s s in g th e v a lu e o f t h e te s tim o n y .” W ebb , 9 3 0 S o . 2 d a t3 9 7 . “ A t r i a l j u d g e 's determ i nati on as t o w hethera w i tness i s quali fi ed to t est i fy as an exp erti s gi ven the w i dest

### 8

pos s i bl e di s cr et i on, ” S h e ffie ld , 740 So. 2d at856 ( ci t i ng P a lm e rv. B ilo x i R e g 'l Me d . Ctr., I nc. , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 5 7 ), a n d the d ec isi o n o f th e tri al j u d g e w il l st an d u n less this C o u rt concl udes “ thatthe di s cr et i on w as a rbi tr ary a nd c l ear l y e rr oneous , a m ount i ng t o a n abus e of di s cr et i on, ” McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at34. “Such di s cr et i on des erves equal r es pectatt he s um m ary j udgm entst age and the tr i al s t age. ” S h e ffie ld , 740 So. 2d at856 ( ci t i ng P al m erv. B iloxiR eg'

l Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 5 7 ). ¶2 0. The maj or i ty ho l ds t hatt he D au bert s ta n d a rd o f a d m is s ib ility w a s e rro n e o u sly ap p li ed to F o rbe s’s affi d av it . I disag ree . T h e fi rstqu esti o n i s tw o -fold: (1) to w h at st an d ard m us tForbes ’ s af

f i davi tbe hel d foradm i s s i bi l i ty as an expe r topi ni on; and ( 2) w hether F o rb e s ’s a ff

id a v it m e t s u c h re q u ir e m e n ts . ¶21. M & W f

i l ed a m ot i on f

or s um m ary j udgm ent , and A pp el l ants res po nd ed w i t h t he af f i davi tof theirexp ertD r. F orbes. E vidence subm i tt ed f ors um m ary-

j udgm entcons i der at i on m u st “ se t fo rth fa c ts a s w o u ld b e ad m iss ib le in e v id e n c e .” M .R .C .P 5 6 (c ). M iss iss ip p i R u le of E vi dence 702 pr ovi des the qual i f i cat i ons f oradmi s s i bi l i ty of

e xpertt es t i m ony. R ul e 702 sta tes : [ i ] f

s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or others peci 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 or t o d et erm i ne a factin issu e, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expe r tby know l edge, ski l l , exper i ence , t r 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 a n 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 the 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 a n d m e th o d s re lia b ly to th e fa c ts o f t h e c a s e . M . R . E . 702. A ddi t i onal l y, i n 2003, M i s s i s s i ppi a dopt ed the modi f i ed D au bert

s t andar d f

or d e te rm in in g a d m is s ib ility o f e x p e rt w itn e s s te s tim o n y u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 . McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31. “W hen det erm i ni ng admi s s i bi l i ty of e xpertt es t i m ony, court s m us tcons i derw hether

### 9

the e x p ert op inion is ba sed o n scien ti fi c k n o w ledg e (reli ab il ity ) an d w h ethe r th e e x p ert o p in io n w il l a s s is t th e tr ie r o f f a c t to u n d e rs ta n d o r d e te rm in e a fa c t in is s u e (r e le v a n c e ).” E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at791 ( ci t i ng McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 ; M . R . E . 7 0 2 ). T h is s t andar d appl i es equal l y t o al l t yp es of expe r tt es t i m ony — s ci ent i f i c and otherw i s e. McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31 ( ci t i ng Kum ho T ir e Co. v. Car m i chael , 526 U . S. 137, 147; 119 S . C t. 1 1 6 7 ; 14 3 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 8 (19 9 9 )). ¶22. D r . Forbes ’ s af

f i davi t w as pr ovi ded, acc or di ng t o A ppel l ant s , t o addr es s the i s s ue of “w hetherthe coppertubi ng t hatM & W i ns t al l ed i n 1981 i s the s ame coppertubi ng thatw as on the bus i n 19 95 . ” I n the af f i davi t , D r . Forbes s t at ed: “The f i r e occ urr ed due t o an im p ro p e rl y fla re d c o p p e r tu b in g , w h ic h in m y o p in io n w a s d e fe c tiv e w h e n o ri g in a lly fl a re d .” H e f ur thers t at ed: “I ti s m y opi ni on thatthe coppe rtubi ng or i gi nal l y f l ar ed by M & W G as C om pany i n 1981 i s the sa m e coppertubi ng w hi ch w as on School B us N o. 19 i n 1995 att he t i m e of the f i r e. ” ¶ 2 3 . M & W m o v e d to strik e F o rb e s’s tes tim o n y d u e to its fa ilu re to m e e t th e re liab ili ty r equi r ementi n M . R . E . 702 that“the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and m e th o d s .” M & W a tta c h e d to its m o tio n th e a ff id a v it o f i ts o w n e x p e rt , D e re k T . N o le n , a m e c h a n ica l en g in e e r w h o a ttes ted to h a v in g “ e x ten siv e tra in in g in e x p lo sio n a n d fire a n a ly sis of l i quef i ed pr opane ga s , m echa ni cal s ys t ems and c om ponent f ai l ur e ana l ys i s . ” N ol en exami ned A m ory School D i s tr i ctB us N o. 19, r evi ew ed mai nt enanc e r ecor ds f r om J ul y 23, 1992, t o M ar ch 9, 1995, and part s i nvoi ces f r om A ugus t26, 1991, t o D ece m ber11, 1992, and r evi ew ed Forbes ’ s af

f i davi t . Fr om hi s exami nat i ons N ol en opi ned thats i nce the coppe r tubi ng l a c ke d i de nt i f

yi ng marks , “ the r e a r e no r e l i a bl e , o rv a l i d, s c i e nt i f i c p r i nc i pl e s or

### 10

m ethods thatcoul d be ut i l i zed by any engi neer , orany others peci al i s t , thatw oul d enabl e that per s on t o gi ve a n op i ni on b a s e d i n s c i e nc e r e ga r di ng f r om w ha tman uf

a c tur e ro rs el l ert he coppertubi ng orbr as s f i t t i ngs . . . came, the age of t he tub i ng an d fi t t i ngs , the dat e thatt he tubi ng and f

i t t i ngs w er e i ns t al l ed, orthe dat e thatthe tubi ng w as f l ar ed and by w hom i tw as f l ar ed. ” N ol en conc l uded t hatt he onl y poss i bl e r el i abl e means of det erm i ni ng the i dent i ty, ag e a n d d ate o f i n stal lat ion o f th e c o p p er tub ing w o u ld b e to c o n stru ct a n e x ac t cha in-o fcus t ody f orthe f our t een ye ar s betw een the 1981 i ns t al l at i on of the or i gi nal pr opane s ys t em and the M ay 23, 1995, i nci dentathand. H ow ever , N ol en subs equent l y st at ed t hat , bas ed on hi s r evi ew of

t he r ecor ds , s uf

f i ci entdat a w oul d notexi s tt o acc ur at el y i dent i f y al l t he n e c e s s a ry p e rs o n s to fo rm a n o p in io n b a s e d in s c ie n c e . F o rb e s p ro v id e d n o re s p o n s e . ¶24. C i t i ng t o McL em ore , M & W di r ect ed the tr i al courtt o the pl ai nt i f f s ’ f ai l ur e t o “s how th a t th e e x p e rt h a s b a se d h is te stim o n y o n th e m e th o d s a n d p ro c e d u re s o f s c ien c e , n o t m e re ly hi s s ubj ect i ve bel i ef

s oruns upport ed spec ul at i on. ” McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at35 ( ci t i ng D au bert v. Merrel

l D ow P h arm s. , 509 U . S. 579, 5 92- 594; 113 S. C t . 2786; 125 L . E d. 2d 46 9 (199 2). M & W fur ther ar gu ed thatm ere conclusi on s w hich ar e “dev oid of factual bases” do notm eetthe expertopi ni on c r i t er i a, ci t i ng P alm er v. B ilox iR eg. Med. Ctr. , 564 So. 2d 1346, 1358. T he tr i al courtagre ed w i th M & W . I n gr ant i ng M & W ’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke Forbes ’ af

f i davi t , the tr i al court , ci t i ng McL em ore , fou n d th at “th e o p inion s ex p resse d b y D r. Forbes i n hi s af

f i davi tar e nothi ng m or e than uns uppor t ed conc l us i ons w hi ch ar e devoi d of a fa c tu a l b a sis a n d n o t th e p ro d u c t o f re liab le p rin c ip les a n d m e th o d s, a n d th e re fo re , fail to m eetthe s t andar ds f

oradmi s s i on of

expertt es t i m ony underM . R . E . 702. ”

### Th e pertin ent p ortio n o f the ex aminatio n w ent as fo llow s: 3 

### Q: Dr. Hayne, you te stif

ie d e arli er that the def endant' s st at em ent

that you saw was cons is te nt wi th how the guns hot wound oc cur re d? A: I t woul d be c onsi st ent with thephysi ca l f

indings that I ob serve d and the info rmationpro vid ed to me byop po site side co un sel. Q: Anddo yo u und erstandthat th e eviden ce is that two peop le fired th at sho t? A: That wa s es se nti al ly thes umm ar y of the infor mati on give n to m e and se en on thevide o. Q: And let ' s suppos e if

one pers on had fir ed that shot , would your opini on be thesame ? A: Icould not

exc ludethat; howeve r, I woul d favor that a s ec ond party be i nv olve d in that

po s i t i on i ngof

thewe a po n . . . it woul d bec on s i s t e nt

wi th two peo ple invo lved . I can ' t exclu de o ne, b ut I th inkthat w ou ld b e less likely . . .

. Q: Are the in

juries M r. Fu lgh am sustain ed co nsistent with in a reaso nab le deg ree of med ical certaintywiththe d efend ant's versionof ho w h e was sh ot? A: The y ar e c onsi st ent

within rea sona

bleme dic alce rt ainty. Edmonds , 955 So. 2d at

791-92. 11 ¶25. I n E dm onds , t hi s C our tcons i der ed the St at e’ s expert ’ s opi ni on, bas ed on obs ervat i on in a n a u to p s y , o f c a u s a tio n o f t h e v ic tim ’s fa ta l w o u n d . E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at791. T he ex p ert t esti fi ed that the w o u n d w as c au sed b y tw o sh o o ters as o p p o sed to a sing le sh o o ter. 3 I d . T h is C o u rt a g re e d w ith th e d e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t “ su c h tes tim o n y w a s s c ien tifica lly unf ounded: ‘ Y ou cannotl ook ata bul l etw ound and t el l w hetheri tw as m ade by a bul l etf i r ed by one per s on pul l i ng the tr i ggerorby tw o per s ons pul l i ng the tr i ggers i m ul t aneous l y. ’ ” I d. at792. T he C our thel d thatthe t es t i m ony s houl d have be en excl uded on t he gr ounds thatt he

### 12

S t at e did not show thatit s exp ert ’s tes t i m on y w as based o n rel i able m et ho ds or procedu res , a n d th e re fo re , th e te s tim o n y d id n o t m e e t o u r s ta n d a rd s fo r a d m is s ib ility . I d . ¶26. H er e, the t ri al co urtsi m i l ar l y f ound thatD r . Forbes ’ s t es t i m ony di d notm eet our s t andar ds of

admi s s i bi l i ty. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi di ence 702 provides thatone of the r equi r ement s f

oradmi s s i bi l i ty of

expertt es t i m ony i s that“the t est i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods . ” D r . Forbes’ s af f i davi ts ol el y put s f

or th uns uppor t ed s pecul at i on, s ubj ect i ve bel i ef s and conc l us i ons – thatthe tubi ng on School B us 19 w hi ch caus ed the f

i r e w as def

ect i ve and thatthi s tubi ng on the bus atthe t i m e of the fi re i n 1995 w as the s ame tubi ng as w as on the bus i n 1981. Such concl us i ons ar e aki n t o t hos e gi ven by the expe r ti n E dm onds . ¶ 2 7 . A p p e llan ts a lso a rg u e th a t th e trial c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e h e ld a h e a rin g a s it w a s th e o n ly appr opr i at e means f

orr evi ew of

the rel i abi l i ty of

the expe r t ’ s opi ni ons and i n w hi ch the A p p ell an t s’ exp ertcou l d h ave h ad an op po rtun i ty to r espon d to the ad m i ssi bil i ty is sues M & W r ai s ed. T hus , the s econd que s t i on i s w hetherthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n not pr ovi di ng a D a u b e rt h e a rin g b e fo re strik in g th e a ffid a v it. ¶28. T hi s C our tpr evi ous l y has deeme d p r op e rthe s tr i ki ng of an expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony w i thout a D a u b e rt hear i ng. I n E dm onds , the C o u rt d isc a rd e d th e a ss e rt io n o f th e n e c e ss ity to h o ld a D au bert

heari ng . “A s the U nit ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rthas st at ed, ‘T h e t ri al cou rtm ust have the s ame ki nd of

l at i tude i n d eci ding how t o t es tan expe r t ' s r el i abi l i ty, and t o deci de w hetherorw hen s peci al br i ef i ng orotherpr ocee di ngs a r e neede d t o i nves t i gat e r el i abi l i ty, as i tenj oy s w h en itd ec i des w h e th e r o r n o t that ex p ert' s relev an t t esti m o n y is r eli ab le. ’” E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at791- 92 ( quot i ng Kum ho T ire , 5 2 6 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 5 2 (e m p h a sis in

### 13

o ri g in a l) ). A d m itte d ly , D a u b ert h e a rin g s m a y b e n e c e ss a ry in so m e c a s e s . I d . ( quot i ng Mil

ler v. B akerI

m plem ent Co. , 439 F. 3d 407, 412 ( 8th C i r . 2006) ) . H ow ever , the es s enti al r equi r ementi s thatthe part i es have a n oppor tuni ty t o be hear d be f or e the tr i al c our tm akes a d e c is io n . I

d. A courtn eed nothol d an ac tual hear i ng i n or dert o compl y w i th D au bert . E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at792 ( ci t i ng N el s on v. T enn. G as P i

peline Co. , 2 43 F . 3d 244, 249 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 )). A s fo r th e p ro v isio n o f a n o p p o rtu n ity fo r th e d e fe n d a n t to fu lly d e fe n d its exp ert ’s op i nion w i thouta D au bert he ar i ng, thi s C our ts t at ed i n E dm onds : “A ft er the d efense r eques t ed a D au bert

h e a rin g , b o th co u n se l ap p ro a c h e d th e b e n c h a n d g a v e a b rie f a rg u m e n t. T her ef or e, the def

ens e had a n oppor tuni ty to be hear d. . . . ” Id . at793. W i thouta hea r i ng, th is C o u rt h e ld th a t th e c ir c u it c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e e x c lu d e d th e te s tim o n y . I d. ¶2 9 . F u rth e r, u p o n the co n clus ion that the ex p ert o p inion is inad m issi b le, the tr ial co u rt m ay exc l ude the t es t i m ony bef or e tr i al , i ncl udi ng dur i ng a s umm a ry j ud gmenthear i ng, w hi ch i s exac t l y w hatoccurr ed i n the ca s e atbar . I n W ebb , thi s C our taf

f i r m ed the exc l us i on of e x p e rt te s tim o n y o n fu tu re d a m a g e s a s s p e c u la tiv e d u ri n g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W ebb , 930 So. 2 d a t 3 9 8 . T h e e x p e rt w a s to te s tif y to fu tu re d a m a g e s o f l o s t p ro fi ts . I d . at 39 7 . H o w ev er, in b rin g in g th e tes tim o n y , the W e b b s fa iled to e sta b lish th a t th e y w e re ru n n in g a p ro fitab le b u s in e s s p ri o r t o th e a lle g e d d a m a g e . I d. at 39 8 . T h e tri al co u rtfou n d d u ri n g su m m ary jud g m en t th at th e testi m o n y fail ed the re li ab il ity p ron g o f D au bert , and thi s C our taf f i r m ed th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s fi n d in g . I d. Cl ear l y, a tr i al c our tmay exc l ude expertt es t i m ony w i t ho ut pr ovi di ng a D au bert

h e a r in g . See Hubbard v. W ansley , 95 1 S o. 2d 95 1, 95 4, 95 6 (M i ss. 2 0 0 7 ) (affi rm ing ex clus ion o f ex p ert t esti m o n y as in ad m issi b le at sum m ary jud g m en t) ; S h effield , 7 40 So. 2d at856 ( af f i r m i ng excl us i on of

expertaf

f i davi tas i nadmi s s i bl e at

### 14

su m m a ry ju d g m e n t); P alm er v. B ilox iR eg. Med. Ctr. , 564 So. 2d at1358 ( af f i r m i ng ex clus ion o f ex p ert t esti m o n y d u ri n g su m m ary jud g m en t si n ce the o p inion s w ere “m ere c o n c lu sio n s d e v o id o f fa c tu a l b a se s” w h e re th e e x p e rt f a iled to p ro d u c e th e b a sis fo r h is opi ni on dur i ng hi s depos i t i on oratt ache d t o hi s af f i davi t s f i l ed i n oppos i t i on t o the mot i on for su m m ary jud g m en t) . ¶30 . U p o n p rov iding an op po rtun i ty forboth s i des t o be heard and fi n d ing the ex p ert t es t i m ony i nadmi s s i bl e acc or di ng t o M . R . E . 702 and the modi f i ed D a u b e rt s t andar d, the tr i al c o u rt m a y e x c lu d e th e e x p e rt tes tim o n y . In th e c a se a t b a r, A p p e llan ts h a d a n o p p o rtu n ity to be hea r d. M & W m oved t o s tr i ke D r . Forbes ’ s af f i davi t , w hi ch pr ovi ded an opportuni ty f or M & W t o voi ce i t s a r gum ent s c oncerni ng the expe r tt es t i m ony. A ppel l ant s coul d have f i l ed a r es pon s e t o the mot i on t o s tr i ke D r . Forbe s ’ s a f f i da vi tbu tf

a i l e d t o d o s o. A dd i t i ona l l y, d u ri n g the h ea ri n g in w h ich th e c o u rtsim u lt an eo u sly c o n side red the m o ti o n for su m m ary ju d g m e n t an d th e m o tio n to s trik e , A p p e llan ts c o u ld h a v e o ffe re d a rg u m e n t as to h o w th e ir expert ’ s t es t i m ony w as support ed by re l i abl e pr i nci pl es and m ethods , butt hey di d not . Such o p p o rtu n iti e s to p re se n t ar g u m e n ts to th e c o u rt a re a k in to e a c h c o u n se l’s o p p o rtu n ity to m ake a br i ef

ar gum entdur i ng tr i al i n E dm onds . B etw een M ay 4, 2005, w hen M & W f i l ed th e m o tio n to s trik e D r. F o rb e s’s a ffid a v it an d th e h e a rin g o n O c to b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , A p p e llan ts f ai l ed t o pr ovi de evi dence orar gum entof the bas i s f

orD r . F orbes ’ s concl us i on thatthe coppertubi ng M & W i ns t al l ed on Bus. N o. 19 w as the s ame coppe rtubi ng on the bus att he tim e o f t h e fi re . ¶31. B oth part i es havi ng been a f f or ded the oppor tuni ty t o m ake a r gum ent s conce rni ng the s uf f i ci ency of

D r . Forbes ’ s af

f i davi t , the i s s ues w er e f ul l y devel oped and a r gued t o the tr i al

### 15

courtduri ng a m ot i on forsumm ary j udgm enthear i ng. F ur ther , t hi s C our tfi nds t hatthe tr i al co u rtd id n o t ap p ly th e stan d ard o f ad m issi b il ity in an a rbitrary o r clearly e rron eo u s m an n er. Forbes and A ppel l ant s pr ovi ded onl y co n clusi on s, fai l i ng t o p rovi de a b asi s f or tho se c o n c l u s i o n s . Th a tf

a i l u r e p l a c e s Ap p e l l a n t s i n n o n c o mp l i a n c e wi th th e r e q u i r e me n to f M . R. E. 7 0 2 , w h ich re q u ire s fo r a d m iss ib ili ty th a t ex p e rt tes tim o n y is th e p ro d u c t o f re liab le pr i nci pl es and m ethods . A ccor di ngl y, t he str i ki ng of D r . F orbes ’ s af f i davi tdi d notamount to a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n b y th e tr ia l ju d g e . I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND L AM AR, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.