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 9 - CA- 0 1 8 6 6 - S CT T HE S HER W I N- W I L L I AMSCOM

P AN Y
v. T REL L VI ON GA I NES , A MI NOR BY AN D THROUGH

HI SNATURAL M OTHER, LEGAL GUARDI

AN AND NEXT FRI

END, S HERNEKER POL LAR D
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 09/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J EF F ERS ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M AR GA RET O ERTLI NG CU PP LES W . W A Y N E D R IN K W A T E R , J R . LUT HER T . M UNFORD F RED L . BANKS, J R. J OH N G . CO RLEW KAT HY A. S M I T H RI CHARD H. DEANE, J R. REB ECC A A. W OM EL DORF ERI C G. LAS KER AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : J OHN T I M OT HY GI VE NS TI M OTHY W . P ORTE R P AT RI CK C. M AL OUF M I CH AE L J . CA S ANO DEN NI S C. SW EET 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 N D E R E D - 09/ 08/ 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: EN BA NC. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### 2

¶1. I n thi s per s onal
- i nj ury, pr oducts -l i abil i t y case, the j ury aw arded the pl ai nt i f f $7
m i l l i on, f i ndi ng thatT r el l vi on G ai nes had been br ai n- damaged fr om exposur e t o l ead. I n an effo rtto co n v ince this C o u rtto rev erse th e tr ial jud g m en t and to ren d er jud g m en t i n it s fav o r, the def endant , S herw i n- W i l l i ams C om pany, chal l enges the r el i abi l i ty of pl ai nt i f f’ s caus at i on expert s and f

actw i tnesses. In the al t ernat i ve, Sherw i n- W i l l i ams al l eges thatunr el i abl e,
u n fairl y preju d ici al, an d u n ti m ely d iscl o sed ex p ert t esti m o n y an d a b iased jury p o o l r eq u ir e a n e w tr ia l. STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶2. T r el l vi on G ai nes ( “Tre l l vi on”) , the pl ai nt i f f , w as born i n 1991 and l i ved atal l r el evant t i m es i n a w ooden hous e on H i ghw ay 553 i n Fayett e, M i s s i s s i ppi , w i th hi s m otherSherneker Pol l ar d ( “Pol l ar d”) , gr andmot herD or i s G ai nes ( “G ai nes ”) , and st ep-gr andf atherJ ohnny “C racker” C raw for d (“C raw for d”), w ho b ou gh tthe ho use in l at e 19 78 or 197 9. T he h ou se
w a s b u il t i n the e arly 1 9 0 0 s an d w as b u rne d in 1 9 9 4 . E x p ert t esti m o n y co n clus ively
es t abl i s hed thats ampl es of r emai ns a tthe hous e s i t e cont ai ned l ead- bas ed pai nt . T w o bl ood t es t s i n Sept ember1993 s how ed thatT r el l vion h ad el evat ed bl ood l ead l evel s of 30
m i cr ogr ams perdeci l i t er( 30 μg/ dL ) and 19 μg/ dL f i ve days l at er. T r el l vi on now has
s ig n if ic a n t c o g n itiv e d e fi c ie n c ie s th a t h e c la im s a re a re s u lt o f l e a d p o is o n in g . ¶3 . Factw i t nes s es f orTr e l l vi on t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe y h a d b ou gh ta nd a pp l i e d l ead- bas ed pai ntm anuf

actur ed by the Sherw i n- W i l l i ams C om pany ( “Sherw i n- W i l l i ams”) t o the i nt er i or and ext er i orof

the hous e atva r i ous t i m es . Sherw i n- W i l l i ams r es ponded w i th t es t i m ony and
c o rp o ra te d o c u m e n ts to su p p o rt its co n ten tio n tha t itb e g a n to e lim in a te le a d in its p ro d u c ts in th e 1 9 3 0 s a n d sto p p e d m a n u fa c tu rin g a n y in te ri o r lea d -b a se d p a in t in 1 9 5 4 a n d a ll

### See Poll ard v . Sherwi n-Wi ll iamsCompany , 955 So. 2d 764 (Mi ss . 2007)
. 1 

### So lan ki v. Ervin , 21 So. 3d 552, 565 ( Mis s. 2009). 2 

### Spotl it e Skat ing Ri nk, I nc. v. Barne

s , 988 So. 2d 364, 368 ( Mis s. 2008). 3 

### U.S . Fid . & Gua r. Co. v. Ma rtin , 998 So. 2d 956, 964 ( Mis s. 2008). 4 

### 3 r es i dent i al l ead- bas ed pai nti n 1972. T hi s l aw s ui tw as f i l ed i n 2000. Sum m ary j udgm entw as gr ant ed f or S herw i n- W i l l i ams by the C i r cui tC our tof J ef f er s on C ounty, af

f i r m ed by the C our tof A ppeal s , t hen reversed by t hi s C our ton w r i tof cert i or ar i i n 2007. T he tr i al w as 1 hel d i n A pr i l 2009 i n the C i r cui tC our tof J ef f er s on C ounty bef

or e t he H on orabl e Lam ar P ick a rd , an d a u n a n im o u s ju ry f o u n d fo r th e p lain tiff a n d a w a rd e d $ 7 m ill io n in
co m p en sato ry d am ag es. B ec au se this case ha s m u lt iple, co m p lex issue s, rel ev an t f ac ts are i n c l u d e d i n th e d i s c u s s i o n b e l o w. DI S CU S S I ON I . D i d t he t ri al court err i n denyi ng Sh erwi n- W i l l i am s ’ m ot i on f or ju d g m en t n o tw it h stan d ing th e v er d ict? ¶4. 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
. E vi dence s houl d be cons i der ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the appe l l ee, gi vi ng 2 thatparty the benef

i to f al l f avor abl e i nf

er ence s w hi ch may r eas onabl y be dr aw n f r om t he evi dence
. W e w i l l af f i r m t he den i al o f a m ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ctora mot i on f or 3 ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict if th e re is su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e v e rd ict, bu tw e w i l l rever se i f the ev i den ce, as appl i ed t o the el em ents of a party’s cas e, i s ei ther so i ndi 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. Sher w i n- 4 W i l l i ams of

f er s thr ee a r gum ent s on thi s i s s ue, how everthe f i r s tar gum enti s di s pos i t i ve.

### 4

D i d the plai nt i

f f of f ers uf f i ci ent pr oof thathis i nj ur i es w er e caus ed by She r w i nW ill ia m s le a d-b a se d

p a in t? ¶ 5 . T h e p la in tif

f c o n c e d e s th a t n o s c ie n tif ic s tu d y h a s c a u s a lly c o n n e c te d p e rm a n e n t b ra in d a m a g e to a sin g le, a sy m p to m a tic e lev a tio n o f b lo o d lea d to 3 0 μ g /d L , fo llo w e d b y a ra p id de c l i ne t o ba s e l i ne . H oweve r , h e a r gu e s , “ I twas n otthe o pi ni on o f [ ou r ] e xp er tw i t nes s es thatthi s cas e w as a ‘ s i ngl e’ expos ur e. N o m att erhow m any t i m es the D ef endants ays i tw as a si ng l e exp osure, do es not m ake ittrue. T rel l vion w as exp osed to t ox i c S herw i n-W i l l i am s’ lea d p a in t d u st fo r fo u r (4 ) y e a rs.” W e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in det erm i ni ng thatthe cor e opi ni on – l ead poi s oni ng caus ed cogni t i ve i m pai rm ents – w as re lia b ly b a s e d o n s c ie n c e a n d th e fa c ts p re s e n te d
. ¶ 6 . Dr . J o h n Ro s e n , o n e o f t wo c a u s a t i o n e x p e r t s , t e s t i f i e d b y v i d e o d e p o s i t i o n . He
o p in e d th a t T re llv io n w a s p o iso n e d b y lea d fro m in fa n c y th ro u g h late 1 9 9 3 . H e a c h iev e d th is opi ni on thr ou gh “ di f

f e r e nt i a l di a gn os i s . ” H e bas ed hi s di f f er ent i al di agnos i s on “the appa r ent f actthat[ T r el l vi on] w as exce s s i vel y expos ed t o l ead a s a young i nf ant . ” H e not ed that T r el l vi on’ s onl y document ed el evat ed bl ood l evel s w er e 30 μg/ dL on Sept ember15, 1993, and 19 μg/ dL on Sept ember20, 1993. ¶7. “Exposur e” t o l ead – or j us t bei ng ar ound i t– i s not danger ous . I t m us t be i nges t ed t o poi s on a per s on. D r . Paul M us hak, acc ept ed as an expe r ti n the f i el d of t oxi col ogy, t es t i f i ed thatbl ood l ead l evel s of 10 μ g/dL o r hi gherar e t oxi c. H e f ur thert es t i f

i ed that i nges t i on of

f i ne l ead du stis a m aj orpathw ay f ori nges t i on of

l ead. H i s opi ni on w as t hat T r el l vi on had been “e xpos ed” t o a “l ead envi r onm ent ” f r om bi r th unt i l t he hous e burned, and th a t le a d p a in t w a s th e s o u rc e o f T re llv io n ’s e le v a te d b lo o d le v e ls in S e p te m b e r 1 9 9 3 .

### Lid skyexp lainedthat “fu ll scale” IQ is calculatedb y averag ing scores o n “v erbal” 5 

### and “performance” te st s. Tre llvion’ s ve rba l I Q sc orewas 74, and his sc oreon the perfo rmance test w as in th e “hig h 6 0s.” 5 ¶8. D r . T heodor e Li ds ky, ent er ed as an exper ti n t he f i el d of ne ur ops ychol ogy, per f or m ed a di f f er ent i al di agnos i s on T r el l vi on t o det erm i ne t hat hi s br ai n had bee n i nj ur ed by l ead poi s oni ng , fi nd i ng that , w i thoutthe l ead poi s oni ng, T r el l vi on’ s I Q w oul d have be en i n t he “i n the bott om of

the l ow aver age r ange. ” Li ds ky expl ai ned t hat , w hi l e “l ead i s el i m i nat ed
r el at i vel y r api dl y f

r om the bl ood .
. . even w hen i t ’ s go ne fr om the bl ood, i t ’ s s t i l l i n the br ai n. ” To det erm i ne w hetherT r el l vi on had a br ai n i nj ury, L i ds ky u sed a met hod cal l ed “def i ci tm eas ur ement. . . w hi ch i s w her e you l ook ata per s on’ s bas el i ne l evel of f unct i oni ng and l ook t o s ee i f

ther e ar e s cor es t hatdevi at e . . . f r om thatbas el i ne. ” T he bas el i ne i s t he l evel atw hi ch one w oul d expectt hatper s on t o func t i on, butf orbr ai n i nj ury. L i ds ky t es t i f i ed tha t “a s a m att er of co u rse” pro fession als ad d po ints to th e p ati en t’ s kn o w n IQ sc o re to d eterm ine th e b ase li n e in “lead po ison ing ” ca ses b ec au se “w e k n o w h is I Q g o es d o w n . It ’s
o n e o f t h e m o s t e s ta b lis h e d p o in ts in sc ie n c e . . . . S o y o u h a v e to a d d a n u m b e r o f p o in ts .” L i ds ky added t en poi nt s t o T r el l vi on’ s f ul l
- s cal e I Q ( ors i x t o hi s hi gh er score, a 74 verbal IQ ). 5 ¶9 . L idsk y ex p lai n ed this “b ase li n e” m etho d furthe r: W hen I t es t ed [ T r el l vi on] i n 2001, hi s I Q w as aboutal m os t69 . . . . Y ou l ook atthatas hi s bas el i ne and then you l ook a thi s t es t i ng. I f ther e’ s an i m pai r m ent at th at po int, w ith o u t adju sti n g h is b a se li n e, th en y o u ad just th e b ase li n e. If ther e’ s no i m pai r m entatthatpoi nt , then you s ay, thi s i s w hathe i s , and you can’ tadj us ti t. . . . B ef

or e [ I ] even l ooked athi s bas el i ne [ I ] know he’ s i nj ur ed. A t t h a t p o in t, h e s ta rt s a t th e b a s e lin e . B ef or e, l i ke you s ai d, you ar e as s um i ng the chi ld is i nj ur ed j us tby l ooki ng athis l ead l eve l
. You can’ tdo that
.

### Th e caus e of as many as one ha lf

of c as es of m ent alre tardati on is unknown or 6 

### “i d io path ic.” D.K . Daily , H.H . Ard ing er, G.E . Ho lmes, I de nti f i c ati on a nd

Evalua ti on of Ment al Re tar dati on , 61 ( 4) Am . Fami ly Phys ic ian 1059–67, 1070 ( Feb. 2000). 6 L i ds ky agr eed thatthe neur ops ychol ogi cal t es t s thathe u ses a r e notdes i gned t o det ectt he
caus e of any part i cul ardef

i ci t . H e t es t i f

i ed, neverthel es s , thath e st i l l coul d concl ude that T r el l vi on’ s i nj ury w as caus ed by l ead. Li ds ky t es t i f i ed thatno s tudi es had bee n done l i nki ng “ac ut e expos ur es ” t o l ead w i th I Q r educt i on beca us e “ba s ed on w hatthe C D C has s t at ed, th e re a re n o a c u te e x p o s u re s .” ¶10. L ead poi s oni ng w as , i n the opi ni on of D r . R os en, the ca us e of perm anent i nt el l ectual i m pai rm ent s uncover ed by D r . L i ds ky. W hen as ked i f he w oul d have di agnos ed Tre l l vi on
w i th l ead poi s oni ng i n the abs ence of the tw o el evat ed bl ood l ead r esul t s, D r . R os en
r es ponded, I w ou l d h ave recog nized – I w ou l d h ave d i agn osed him as having the di sease of – of exce s s i ve l ead e xpos ur e, and thatdi s eas e i s a pervas i ve di s eas e that i nvol ves every or gan of a chi l d’ s body i ncl udi ng thei rbr ai n, an d t hati s one as pectorone compar t m ents o t o s peak of ul t i m at el y t he fa ctthathe w as e x p o se d to e n o u g h lea d in th e initia l ph a se o f c h ild – o f e x c e ss iv e e x p o su re to l ead to el evated blood leads. Fi nal l y, w hen as ked how he w as abl e t o rul e outan i di opathi c caus e f orT r el l vi on’ s m ent al
r et ar dat i on, D r . R os en r epl i ed, “I rul ed i toutbe caus e ther e i s nothi ng i n the medi cal r ecor ds

6 to in d ica te th a t th e re is a n y – a n y so c a lled e tio p a th ic [s ic] o r u n k n o w n c a u se . W h a t is
u n k n o w n is u n k n o w n . . . .” ¶11. T he pl ai nt i f

f’ s exper t s see m i ngl y cont r adi cteach otherand themsel ves . For exampl e, D r. L id sk y te stifie d th a t a d d in g p o in ts to d e ter m in e a b a se lin e IQ is a “ m a tter o f c o u rse ” in “l ead p ois on i ng ” cases b ec ause “w e kn ow his IQ go es dow n . . . [ i ] t ’s on e of the m ost

### Miss. T ran sp. C om m’n v. McL emo re , 863 So. 2d 31, 40 ( Mis s. 2003). 7 

### 7 es t abl i s hed po i nt s i n s c i e nc e . ” H oweve r , D r . M us ha k, pl ai nt i f f’ s expertt oxi col ogi s t , t es t i f i ed that“no one has done the dat a, gat her ed t he dat a t o s how ” w hether“any t i m e a c hi l d has an el evat ed bl ood l ead l evel , i t ’ s goi ng t o r es ul ti n the l os s of I Q poi nt s . ” A nd D r . L i ds ky atone poi ntt es t i f

i ed thatf i ndi ng the i nj ury depends on cal cul at i ng the bas el i ne ( i ncl udi ng addi ng p o in ts a ss u m e d b y lea d p o iso n in g ), bu t l a ter a ss e rte d th a t itis im p ro p e r to a ss u m e th a t a c h ild i s i nj ur ed bas ed s ol el y on an i ncr eas ed bl ood l ead l evel
. Fur ther , i ti s di f f i cul tt o det erm i ne
w hetherL i ds ky’ s opi ni on in t he cas e i s , pr overbi al l y, a chi cken oran egg. D r . R os en as s um ed, i n r el i ance upon D r . L i ds ky’ s fi ndi ngs , t hatT r el l vi on w as , i n fa ct , i nj ur ed ( and not just “slow ”) to d if

feren ti all y d iagn o se e x p o su re to lea d as th e c au se o f th e inju ry. H o w ev er, L idsk y ’s ad m itted m etho d , “d eficitm ea su rem en t, ” d ep en d ed u p o n the c a lcu lat ion o f a b ase li n e, w h ich d ep en d ed u p o n assu m ing that T rell v ion h ad b e e n p o iso n ed b y lead
. D r. L idsk y w as, esse n ti all y , lean ing o n D r. R o sen ’s th eo ry o f ca u sati o n , w h o w as lea n ing o n D r. L id s k y ’s th e o ry o f i n

ju ry , w h o w a s l e a n in g o n D r. R o s e n ’s th e o ry o f c a u s a tio n . . . ad i nf i ni t um . Fi nal l y, w hi l e D r . R os en t es t i f i ed thathe coul d have di agnos ed Tre l l vi on w i t h the di s eas e of

“exc es s i ve l ead e xpos ur e” e ven w i thouta document ed el evat ed bl ood l evel , he
su b se q u e n tly tes tified th a t lea d p o iso n in g c a n n o t b e d iag n o se d w ith o u t a b lo o d lea d tes t. ¶12. T he pl ai nt i f

f char act er i zes D rs . R osen and L i ds ky as “s om e of the w or l d’ s l eadi ng e x p e rts in th e ir re sp e c tiv e fie ld s[.] ” S h e rw in -W ill iam s re sp o n d s th a t th e trial c o u rt fa iled to
e xe r c i s e i t s “ ga t e ke e pi ng du ty” be c a us e i ta l l e ge dl y d i d n ot“ un de r t ake any m eani ngf ul 7
e v a lu a tio n [o f t h e re lia b ility o f t h e o p in io n s ] b e y o n d e x p e rt c re d e n tia ls .”

### Daubert v . Merrel l Dow Phar

mace utical

s, Inc . , 509 U.S. 579, 590, 113 S. Ct . 2786, 8 

### 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)
. McL emo re , 863 So. 2d at 40. 9 

### E.g
. Ed mo nd s v. Sta te , 955 So. 2d 787, 792 ( Mis s. 2007). 10

### McL emo re , 863 So. 2d at 34. 11 

### Hyu nd ai M oto r Am erica v. A

pp lewh ite , 53 So. 3d 74 9, 75 4 (Mi ss . 2011) (c iting 12 

### Da ub ert, 509 U. S. at 595)
. Watt s v . Radi ator Special ty Co. , 990 So. 2d 143, 147 n. 9 (Mi ss . 2008)
. 13 

### “After th is, therefo re, becau se of th is.” 14 

### 8 ¶1 3 . M issi ssipp i R u le of E v iden ce 7 0 2 an d o u r fam il iar D a u b e rt s t and ard requi re tr i al 8
court s t o actas “gat ekee per s ” w i th r egar d t o expertopi ni on t es t i m ony, beca us e j ur i es t end 9 t o p l ace g reatw ei gh to n the t est i m on y of exp ert s and can be m i sl ed b y u nrel i able opi nions. 10 B utw e ar e m i ndf

ul thatthe excl us i on ora dm i s s i on of e xpertt es t i m ony i s w i thi n t he di s cr et i on of

the tr i al court , and, f

ur therm or e, vi gor ous cr os s - exami nat i on, pr es ent at i on of 11 contr ary evi dence, an d car ef ul i ns truct i on on the bur den of pr oof ar e tr adi t i onal and appr opr i at e means of

att acki ng s haky butadmi s s i bl e evi dence
. 12 ¶ 1 4 . T h e o p in io n s e x p re s s e d b y D rs . R o s e n a n d L id s k y , h o w e v e r, w e re n o t re lia b le
. A dos e- r es pons e r at i o i s cr i t i cal t o det erm i ni ng the caus al c onnect i on be tw een a poi s on and an i nj ury. I n t hi s cas e, the onl y know n dos e – ori nges t i on of l ead – i s r epr esent ed by 13 T re llv io n ’s e lev a ted b lo o d lea d lev e ls fro m S e p tem b e r 1 9 9 3 . T h e e x p e rts e x tra p o late d b o th dos e and dur at i on w i th onl y c i r cumst ant i al s uppor t i ng e vi dence , e ngagi ng i n a cl as s i c l ogi cal fa llac y : pos thoc er

go pr opt erhoc
. D r . L i ds ky expl ai ned: “[ H ] e w as r ai s ed i n the hous e, 14 the s ame hous e f

r om t he day of

bi r th. W hat ’ s the l i kel i hood t hat[ D r . T i m m ] j us thappene d

### Hill v. M ills , 26 So. 3d 322, 329 ( Mis s. 2010) ( Expert t es timony m ust proc ee d from 15 

### “what i s known, and the e xpert m ust haveknowledg e that i s m orethan subj ec tive or un sup po rted sp eculatio n.”). See Smit h ex rel . Smi th v . Cl ement, 983 So. 2d 285, 289 ( Mis s. 2008). 16 

### 9 t o [ t es tTr el l vi on’ s bl ood] on the day thathi s bl ood l evel w as 30? ” Thi s opi ni on w as not b a se d o n so m e e p id e m io lo g ica l stu d y c a lcu latin g th e lik e lih o o d o f e lev a ted b lo o d lev e ls bas ed on t he l e ve l s of

pa i nti n the ho me. N e i the rw a s i tba s e d o n Tr e l l vi on ’ s medi cal
r ecor ds
. T he bas i s f

orL i ds ky ’s an d R os en’ s caus at i on t es t i m ony – thatT r el l vi on w as ing esti n g an d b eing p o iso n e d b y lea d the e n ti re ti m e h e li v ed in the h o u se – w as m ere s pecul at i on and i nadmi s s i bl e. 15 ¶1 5. W e ar e ur ged by am i ci t o i ns t ructt r i al cour tj udges t ha tc on s i de r a t i on of the “rel evan ce and rel i abil i ty” o f an exp ert ’s op i nion (and n ot s i m ply the ex pert ’s qu al i fi cat i on s) is a n ec essa ry p art o f th e tr ial co u rt ’s du ty as a g atek ee p er. T h e tr ial j u d g e in th is ca se d id
n o t co n side r m an y of S h erw in-W il li am s’s argu m en ts co n ce rnin g th e reli ab il ity o f plainti ff’ s exp ert s, regar ding t hem as chal l eng es t o the w ei gh tand no tthe ad m i ssi bil i ty o f the ex pert s’ t es t i m ony. A m i ci ur ge thatw e i ns tructtr i al court s t o make pa r t i cul ar i zed f i ndi ngs as t o t he admi s s i bi l i ty of

expertopi ni ons , w hen thos e chal l enges a r e r ai s ed bef or e tr i al
. I n thi s cas e, a D au bert

chal l enge w as f

i l ed bef or e tr i al , and the courtchos e t o de l ay rul i ng unt i l tr i al , by
w hich pointthe cou rtdi d n ot have t i m e t o read t he b ri efs and ful l y co nsi der the argu m ents . O u r trial jud g e s w o rk ex c e e d in g ly h a rd an d h a v e d isc re tio n in h o w the y d isc h a rg e th e ir gat ekee pi ng duty, butw e t ake thi s opportuni ty t o r ei t er at e thats uch duty i ncl udes m aki ng 16

### Miss. R . Ev id. 7 02 ; McL emo re , 863 So. 2d at 38. 17

### Rucker v

. Hopki ns , 499 So. 2d 766, 770 ( Mis s. 1986). 18 

### Rucker v

. Hopki ns , 499 So. 2d at

769. 19 

### 10 s ur e thatthe opi ni ons themsel ves ar e bas ed on s uf f i ci entf act s orda t a and ar e the pr oductof rel i able pr i ncipl es and m et ho ds. 17 ¶16. B eca us e D r s . L i ds ky’ s and R os en’ s s pecul at i on thatT r el l vi on had been i nges t i ng l ead thr oughouthi s ent i r e r es i dence atthe hom e w as unr el i abl e and, ther ef or e, i nadmi s s i bl e, and becau s e the pl ai nt i f

f’ s expert s di d notpr es entany s ci ent i f i c author i ty thatan ac ut e, as ym pt om at i c i nges t i on of l ead c oul d l ead t o the al l eged i nj ur i es , the pl ai nt i f f di d notof

f er s uf f i ci entpr oof

of caus at i on. T hatadmi s s i on of the s pecul at i on of

D r s . L i dks y and R os en
w oul d, al one, tr i ggera new tr i al
. H ow ever , beca us e of the l ack of

s uf f i ci entpr oof

of
caus at i on, w e f

i nd thatthe courts houl d have gr ant ed Sherw i n-W i l l i ams’ m ot i on f or ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict. ¶1 7 . T h e sep ara te o p inion o p ines tha t th e fac t- w itn ess test im o n y p rese n ted b y the p lai n ti ffs i s i nsuff i ci ent t o creat e an is sue forthe jury. W hil e t he tes t i m on y o f these factw i tnesses i s, in v a rio u s w a y s a n d to v a ry in g d e g re e s, in c re d ib le, s e lf-c o n tr a d ic to ry , a n d c ir c u m sta n tial, th is C our thas hel d t hateven c ontr adi ct ory evi dence and evi dence thathas been i m peac hed
cr eat es an i s s ue f

orthe j ury. 18 ¶18. In Rucke rv. Hop kins , w e sai d that i ncredi ble t est i m on y and the t est i m on y o f a plai nti ff w hich i s so cl earl y an d m anif est l y im probab l e shou l d b e dis regar ded ; this al so a pp l i e s t o t e s t i mony tha th a s b e e n c l e a r l y i mpea ched. I n E l s w or th v. G lindm eye r , we 19
re v e rs e d a n d re m a n d e d a ju ry v e rd ic t f o r a d e fe n d a n t in a w ro n g fu l d e a th s u it b e c a u s e “ [n ]o

### Els wort h v. Gli ndmeyer , 234 So. 2d 312, 321 ( Mis s. 1970). 20 

### Stegall, 757 So. 2d 201, 205 ( Mis s. 2005). 21 

### Rucker , 49 9 S o. 2 d at 7 70 . 22 

### 11 c o u rt is re q u ire d to b e liev e , o r sh o u ld b e b o u n d b y im p ro b a b le, in c re d u lo u s, o r u n re a so n a b le evi dence
. . . w hi ch i s vi ol at i ve of physi cal l aw s , hum an exper i ence and com m on sens e, and
w hi ch i ntrudes i nt o the r eal m of the s upernatur al
. ” H ow ever , s ubs equent l y, i n D oe v. 20 S teg a ll , w e f

ound er r orw her e a tr i al j udge, r el yi ng on R ucker , ex clud ed the testi m o n y o f a fac t w itn ess w h o h ad b ee n “c learly im p ea ch ed
. ” T h e log ical ex tens ion o f S teg a ll i s t hat 21 f actt es t i m ony, no mat t erhow thor oughl y c ontr adi ct ed ori m peac hed, m ay cr eat e an i s s ue f or the j ury, s o l ong as i ti s nots upernatur al
. I ndeed, i n R ucker , w e s ai d, “[ e] ven w here t he evi dence i s such thata j udgm entf orthe adve r s e party w oul d have t o be s etas i de as bei ng c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , itd o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily fo llo w th a t a party i s ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver di ct . T he tr i al c our tdi d noterri n denyi ng the mot i ons f or 22 dir ect ed v erdi ctand j ud gm ent not w i thst and i ng the v erdi ctbased o n thi s ar gu m ent, becau se the f act - w i tnes s t es t i m ony cr eat ed an i s s ue f orthe j ury. CO NC L US I ON ¶19. B eca us e D r s . L i ds ky’ s and R os en’ s s pecul at i on w as i nadmi s s i bl e, and because t he p lain tiff’s e x p e rts d id n o t p re se n t an y sc ien tific a u th o rity th a t a n a c u te, a sy m p to m a tic i nges t i on of

l ead c oul d l ead t o t he al l eged i nj ur i es , t he pl ai nt i f f di d notoff

ersuf f i ci entpr oof
o f ca u sa tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re v e rse a n d re n d e r o n th is iss u e , an d n o t o n w h e th e r th e fa c tw i tnes s t es t i m ony s uf

f i ci ent l y es t abl i s hed pr oducti dent i ty. ¶ 2 0 . RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D.

### 12

W A LLE R, C. J . , CA RL SON AN D D I CK I NSO N , P. JJ . , C O N C U R . K I TC H EN S, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y C HA ND L E R A ND KI NG , J J . ; RA ND OL P H, J . , J OI NS I N P AR T . RA ND OL P H, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI TC HENS , J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶21. T o pr evai l on a pr oduct l i abi l i ty cl ai m , the pl ai nt i f f m us t pr ovi de s uf

f i ci entevi dence
o f p ro d u c t id e n tif

ic a tio n , e x p o s u re , a n d p ro x im a te c a u s e . Mo n sa n to Co . v. H a ll , 912 So. 2d 1 3 4 , 1 3 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ) (c iti n g M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 )). T h e p lu ra lity o p in io n rev e rse s th e v e rd ict fo r th e p lain tiff an d ren d e rs ju d g m e n t i n fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t, f i ndi ng the evi dence of expos ur e and pr oxi m at e ca us e t o have be en s pecul at i ve and
unr el i abl e. R es pect f

ul l y, I cannotj oi n thatanal ys i s . W hi l e I agr ee thata j udgm enti n f avor of the def endanti s w arr ant ed, i ti s becaus e of the f ai l ur e of the pl ai nt i f

f’ s pr oof of pr oduct id e n tif ic a tio n . ¶22. Sherw i n- W i l l i ams pr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence that i t had s t opped manuf actur i ng
r es i dent i al l ead- bas ed pai nti n 1972, butthe pl ai nt i f f pr oduced thr ee w i tnes s es w ho t es t i f i ed th a t le a d -b a s e d S h e rw in -W illia m s p a in t w a s u s e d in th e h o u s e b e tw e e n 1 9 7 8 a n d 1 9 9 4 . ¶ 2 3 . Do r i s Ga i n e s , th e p l a i n t i f f’ s g r a n d mo th e r , t e s t i f

i e d th a ts h e h a d p a i n t e d t h e h o me s ever al t i m es be tw een 1979 a nd 1994, and thats he al w ays had as ked the s t or e f orSher w i nW i l l i ams “l ead” pai nt . T he gr andmot heracknow l edged thatshe n ever ha d r ead the pai nt lab e ls, b u t m e re ly a ss u m e d th a t th e p a in t co n tain e d le a d b e c a u se s h e h a d a sk e d fo r le a d p a in t. ¶ 2 4 . V e rn o n C o lli e r w a s a lo n g -tim e frie n d o f th e g ra n d m o th e r’s w h o w o u ld h e lp h e r w ith
var i ous cons truct i on and pai nt i ng pr oj ect s i n he rhous e. C ol l i ert es t i f i ed thathe had he l ped M s . G ai nes pai ntthe out si de of t he house i n 1979 w i th Sherw i n- W i l l i ams pai nt . C ol l i er

### 13

s t at ed thathe bel i eved the pai ntcont ai ned l ead be caus e i tcover ed the pai nt ed s ur f ace i n one coat , buthe di d notr ead the l abel s . M or eover , i n a n e ar l i erde pos i t i on, Col l i ers t at ed thathe and D ori s di d n ot use She rw i n-W i l l i am s painti n the l at t er partof the 1 97 0s beca use “[ D ori s]
w a s n ’t in to S h e rw in -W illia m s a t th a t tim e .” ¶25. J ohnny C r aw f

or d, the pl ai nt i ff’s st ep-grandfather, p urchased t he house i n 1978. C r aw f or d t es t i f i ed thathe ha d boughta nd us ed Sherw i n- W i l l i ams l ead pai nti n the l at e 1970s
a n d re c a lled se e in g th e w o rd s “ lea d p a in t” o n th e lab e ls. T h is te stim o n y w a s d ire c tly contr adi ct ed by a pr i oraf fi dav i tw her ei n he s w or e thathe had no know l edge w hethert he pai ntus ed on the hous e cont ai ned l ead orw hatbr and of pai ntw as us ed. ¶26 . T he p l ai nti ff

s produc ed on e w i tness w ho tes t i fi ed abo ut the paintused o n the hou se bef or e 1978. R ever end M art i n L i as ’ s depos i t i on w as r ead t o the j ury, and he t es t i f i ed that h e h a d w itn e ss e d th e p a in tin g o f th e b a c k p o rc h w ith w h ite S h e rw in -W ill iam s le a d p a in t in the 1930s
. H ow ever , the gr andmot her , M s . G ai nes , t es t i f i ed thatthe bac k por ch had be en
r emoved bef

or e the pl ai nt i f

f w as born, r ender i ng R ever end Li as ’ s t es t i m ony i rr el evanti n t he pr es entcas e. ¶27. T hus , the t es t i m ony by the pl ai nt i f f’ s w i tnes s es w as i ns uf

f i ci ent t o s uppor t a ver di ct
a g a in st th e S h e rw in -W ill iam s C o m p a n y . C o lli e r’s a n d C ra w fo rd ’s te stim o n y w a s d ire c tly and m at er i al l y contr adi ct ed by thei rpr i ors w orn s t at ement s ; thus , thatt es t i m ony w as s u b s ta n tia lly im p e a c h e d
. Jakup v. L ew is G r ocerCo. , 20 0 S o. 59 7, 59 9 (M i ss. 19 41 ). M s. G a in e s m e re ly a ss u m e d tha t th e p a in t co n tain e d lea d b e c a u se sh e h a d re q u e ste d lea d p a in t, but“[ i ] ti s w el l s ett l ed i n thi s j ur i s di ct i on thata verdi ctm ay notbe bas ed upon s ur m i s e or conj ectur e and thatt o pr ove a pos s i bi l i ty onl y i s i ns uf f i ci entt o make a j ury i s s ue. ” John

### The plura li ty hol ds that “f ac t t es timony, no matt er

how thoroughly c ontradi ct ed or 23 

### im pea che d, cr eate s an is suefor thejury, so long as it is not s uper

nat ura l, ” r elying on Doe v

. Stegall, 75 7 S o. 2 d 2 01 , 20 5 (M iss. 20 00 ). Plur. Op . ¶ 18 . Ho wev er, Stegall involved exclu din g fact witnesses at the summary jud gment stage. Id. (“Whi leit i s truethat t his Court has h eld th at there are in stances in wh ich jud ges are allo wedto d isregardor in struct ag ainst inc re dibl e and unre li abl e t es timony at t ri al , this Court

has neve r he ld s im il arly at t he summary j udgme nt s ta ge in a proce eding.” ) 14 Mo rr e ll & Co . v. S h u ltz , 208 So. 2d 906, 907 ( M i s s . 1968). T her ef or e, the ver di ctcannot 23
s t and, and I r es pect f

ul l y concuri n r es ul tonl y. CHANDL ER AND KI NG, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. RANDOL P H, J . , J OI NS THI S OPI NI ON I N PART.