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 - CT - 0 1 9 3 3 - S CT
PAU LA D EN H AM AN D PA M ELA CA LDW

ELL

v. ADAM HOLMES

, A MI NOR BY

AN D THROUGH DON NI E HOLM

ES , HI SFA THER & NATURAL GUARDI

AN ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 28/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAF AYETT E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : TOM M Y W AYN E DE F ER BOBBY T. VAN CE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : J OHN B RI AN HYN E M AN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UDGMENT OF TH E CI RCU I T CO UR T OF LAFA YETTE C O U N T Y IS R E V E R S E D A N D T H E C A S E IS R E M A N D E D - 04/ 07/ 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. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Paul a D enham and P am el a C al dw el l fi l ed a com pl ai ntagai ns tA dam H ol m es i n t he L a fa y e tte C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. D e n h a m an d C a ld w e ll alle g e d th a t H o lm e s h a d n e g lig e n tly
o p e ra ted h is m o to r v e h icle , re su lti n g in a n a c c id e n t in w h ich th e y w e re in ju re d . A L a fa y e tte C ounty j ury r eturned a ver di cti n f avorof H ol m es , a nd the ci r cui tc our te nt er ed a j udgm ent

### 2

cons i s t entw i th the j ury verdict
. A gg ri eved , D enh am and C al dw el l app eal ed, and w e as s i gned this case to the C o u rto f A p p ea ls. A ft er th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls r ev erse d an d rem an d ed for a
new tr i al , H ol m es f

i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof

cert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. ¶2. W hi l e ourdi s pos i t i on of t oday’ s cas e i s t he sa m e as t he C our tof A ppeal s , our r eas ons di f f erf r om the C our tof

A ppeal s as t o w hy a r ever s al of the tr i al
- courtj udgm enti s r equi r ed. W e agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s thatatl eas tone of the j ury i ns truct i ons gr ant ed by the tr i al j udge w as err oneous . W e f i nd, how ever , thatthe tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng to adm oni s h the j ury t o di s r egar d def ens e couns el ’ s comm ent s dur i ng cl os i ng
a r g u me n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s ’ f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e e x p e r tt e s t i mo n y t o s u p p o r tth e i rc l a i ms of H olm es’ s l i abil i ty. F or purpo ses of the n ew tri al t o b e con du ct ed o n rem and , w e l i kew i se add res s the ex t ent t o w hich the t ri al cou rtab used it s di scr et i on by excludi ng the p l ai nti ff s’
ex p ert w itn ess u n d er D au bert a n d M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2
. See D a u b e rt v . Me rr e ll D ow P harm . , 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 ). F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶3. F or the m o st pa rt , w e p rese n t he re th e C o u rtof A pp eal s’ reci t at i on of the fact s. D enham v. Hol

m es , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 0 3 7 4 9 4 , at *1 -2 (¶ ¶4 -8) (M iss. C t. A p p . S ep t. 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 ). H ow ever , w e add cert ai n fa ct s found i n t he r ecor d fort he sa ke of t oday’ s di s cus s i on. O n the d a y o f th e a c c id e n t, P a u la D e n h a m w a s d riv in g h e r v e h icle w ith in o r n e a r th e c o rp o ra te lim its of O xf or d. D enham’ s vehi cl e al s o w as occupi ed by D enham’ s s i s t er , Pam el a C al dw el l , w ho
w as s eat ed on the fr on tseat - pas s engers i de. D enham w as tr avel i ng eas ton the port i on of U niver si ty A ven ue w hich i s eastof the H i gh w ay 7 -U niver si ty A ven ue int ers ect i on and w est

### 3

o f th e in ter se c tio n o f U n iv e rsity A v e n u e w ith H ig h w a y 6 /2 7 8 . In th is a re a , U n iv e rsity A venue i s a tw o- l ane, paved s tr eet , w i th one l ane f oreas t - bound tr af

f i c and one l ane f

or
w es t - bound tr af

f i c. D enham and C al dw el l w er e t r avel i ng t o K en A s h C ons truct i on C om pany ( A s h) , w hi ch i s l ocat ed on t he nor th si de of U ni ver s i ty A venue, fort he purpos e of s ol i ci t i ng bus i nes s f

orthei rr es i dent i al / comm erci al cle ani ng s ervi ce. A ccor di ng t o D enham, as s he pr epar ed t o m ake a lef t - hand turn of

f U ni ver s i ty A venue i nt o the A s h parki ng l ot , s he
e n g a g e d h e r le ft-h a n d -tu rn b lin k e r a n d c a m e to a c o m p lete sto p in th e e a s t- b o u n d lan e to al l ow three or f

ou r w est -boun d v ehicl es t o p ass. D enh am st at ed tha t, a ltho ug h ther e w as a hi l l a s hor tdi s t ance eas tof the A s h pa r ki ng l ot , the hi l l w as a s uf f i ci entdi s t ance aw ay f

r om h er l ocati on s uch that she observed al l of the veh i cl es ( three orf ou r i n n u m b er) sim u ltan e o u sly a s th e y a p p ro a c h e d a n d trav e led p a st h e r. A s D e n h a m a ttem p ted to n e g o tiate the l ef t - hand turn i nt o t he A s h par ki ng l ot , t he f r ontl ef tsi de of A dam H ol m es ' s truck s truck the f r ontpas s engers i de of

D enham' s car . D enh am s t at ed s he neve rs aw H ol m es ’ s t ruck comi ng t ow ar d he r . Lee D urham w as a pa s s engeri n H ol m es ' s truck. B ef or e tr i al , the part i es stip u late d th a t ce rta in p h y sic a l in ju rie s a n d m e d ica l ex p e n se s h a d re su lted fro m th e a c c id e n t. ¶4
. D e nh a m a nd Cal dwel l t e s t i f i e d tha t no on c omi ng tr a f f i c w a s vi s i bl e w he n D enham
comm ence d herl ef

t - hand turn. D enham t es t i f i ed thatthe f

r ontw heel s of hercarw er e i n t he A s h parki ng l otw hen H ol m es ' s truck hi thercar , p ushing itacr os s both tr af f i c l anes on U n iversity A v en u e. T h e c a r s to p p e d o n the ro ad side o p p o sit e the co ll isi o n w ith the c ar’s f r o n te n d c o m p l e t e l y o f f th e r o a d
. H o l m e s 's tru c k s t o p p e d s e v e n ty - f i v e f e e ti n s i d e A s h 's parki ng l ot. T he w reck t otal ed b oth vehicl es.

### 4

¶5. C al dw el l t es t i f

i ed thata n “ i ns t ant ” pr i ort o i m pact , s he s aw H ol m es ’ s truck. She s t at ed thatH ol m es w as dr i vi ng “cr azy f as t ” and thats he di d nothave t i m e t o w arn D enham of the appr oachi ng vehi cl e. H ol m es t es t i f i ed thathe est i m at ed his s peed t o be betw een f or ty and f or ty- f i ve mi l es perhourw hen D enham turned i n f r ontof hi m . The a cci dentr eportr evea l ed thatH ol m es had t ol d o ff i cers thathe w as tr avel i ng f or ty- f i ve mi l es perhour
. D ur ham te s tif ie d th a t D e n h a m ' s v e h ic le h a d a b ru p tly tu rn e d le ft w h e n it w a s “ a lm o s t r ig h t o n th e m .” H ol m es t es t i f

i ed t hathe had appl i ed hi s br akes and had s t eer ed t o the r i ghtt o avoi d hi t t i ng D enham' s c ar . D eputy Shane Theobal d w i th the L af ayett e C ounty Sher i f

f ' s D epart m entw as the i nves t i gat i ng of

f i ceratthe s cene . H e t es t i f i ed thatthe s peed l i m i ton U ni ver s i ty A venue in the are a o f th e a cc iden t w as fo rty m il es p er h o u r. ¶6. B ef

or e tr i al , D enham and C al dw el l de s i gn at ed D on al d R aw son, a tr af f i c- col l i s i on
re c o n stru c tio n ist, as th e ir e x p e rt w itn e ss . T h e p a rties stip u late d th a t R a w so n w a s p ro p e rly and t i m el y des i gnat ed and thathe w oul d t es t i f y by depos i t i on. T he part i es al s o s t i pul at ed that R a w so n w a s q u a lified to g iv e c e rta in e x p e rt o p in io n s o n th e tra ffic a c c id e n t. ¶7. H ow ever , a ttr i al , H ol m es m ade a n o re t enu s m ot i on t o excl ude R aw s on' s depos i t i on tes tim o n y o n th e b a sis th a t itw o u ld n o t aid the jur y . H o lm e s a lso q u e stio n e d th e re liab ili ty
o f th e tes tim o n y , n o tin g th a t R a w so n d id n o t v iew th e a c tu a l w re c k e d v e h icle s o r s p e a k w ith H o lm e s, D u rh a m , o r D e p u ty T h e o b a ld . H o lm e s a rg u e d th a t R a w so n ' s te s tim o n y o n ly

### We e mpha si zethat s omeof the f ac ts we haveadded werenot included in the Cour t 1 

### of App eals’ op inio n. Spec if ic al ly, ac cording t o Raws on, Denham’ s tur n took 3.12 sec onds suc h that the 2 

### front whe el s of

her car we reoff

theroa d and in thegraveldri ve whe n thecol li si on occ urr ed. In hi s pos t- ac ci dent

vis it to the sc ene , Raws on dete rm ine d this exac t tim e by tim ing c ar s a s theyturn ed at th e accident site. 5 re ite ra te d w h a t th e p o lic e r e p o rt s ta te d a n d w a s u n n e c e s s a ry . Hol m es , 2010 W L 1037494, at *1 -2 (¶ ¶4 -8). 1 ¶8. R aw s on’ s e xpertopi ni on, as pr ovi ded i n hi s depos i t i on, c oncl uded thatH ol m es had b e e n sp e e d in g a n d c o u ld h a v e av o id e d the ac c id e n t. R a w so n h a d v iew e d th e a c c id e n t re p o rt, the ac ci dents i t e, the depos i t i on t es t i m ony, and seve r al phot ogr aphs t aken s om e t i m e af t ert he
acc i dent
. T he acc i dentr eports t at ed thatH ol m es ha d e s t i m at ed hi s s peed t o be for ty- f i ve
m il es p er h o u r. R aw so n calcu lat ed th at H o lm es’s v eh icl e h ad be en 20 6 fee t f rom D en h am ’s
carw hen herc arha d be gun t o turn, ba s ed on the “t i m e i tt ook [ D enham] t o turn be f or e” the
v eh icl es co ll ided – 3
. 1 2 seco n d s – an d H o lm es’s e sti m ated sp ee d – forty-five m il es p er h o u r. 2 U s i ng bas i c mat hemat i cs , R aw s on concl uded thatH ol m es ’ s truck, ata const ants peed of for ty-f i ve m i l es per hou r, travel ed the 20 6 feeti n 3
. 12 second s. ¶ 9
. T im in g v e h icle s a t th e ac c id e n t sc e n e , R a w so n fo u n d th a t a s to p p e d v e h icle c o u ld
cr os s the oppos i t e l ane a nd compl et el y e xi tthe r oadw ay i n 3. 62 s econds
. R aw s on opi ned that if H o lm e s h a d b e e n d riv in g fo rty m iles p e r h o u r a n d h a d b ra k e d p ro p e rly , the n “ h e w o u ld h a v e slo w e d d o w n to 3 1 m iles p e r h o u r a n d g o n e b e h in d [th e p lain tiff] a s s h e c lea re d .” T h is

### In R awso n’s d epo sition , he testifiedthat, acco rdin g to Mississip pi ’s traffic 3 

### regu lation s andrules o f the ro ad, “if so meon e is turn ing andtheyd on ’t create an immed iate haz ard, they have the right -of -way.” See Mis s. Code Ann . § 63-3-803 ( Rev. 2004) ( “The dri ver of a vehi cl e wi thin an int er se ction inte nding t o tur n to t he l ef t s hal l yi el d theri ght- ofway to any vehi cl e approac hing from t he oppos it e dire ction, whic h iswithin t he inte rs ec ti on or so close th ereto as to con stitute animmediate h azard. H ow ever, sa iddri v er , h avin g so yie lde d .
. . m ay make suc h l ef t tur n and the dri ver s of al l othe r vehi cl es a pp roach ing the int er se ction from said opposi tedire ction sha llyiel d the ri ght- of- way t o thevehi cl e m aking the left turn.”). Seeals o Ba xter v. R ou nsa ville , 193 So. 2d 735, 739 ( Mis s. 19 67 ) (“[T] he law does not requiretheoperat or of an aut omobi letravel ing at a l awf ul rateof s pee d to s top or e ven t o re ducethespe ed of his vehi cl e m er ely becau sehe s ee s anothe r ve hic leon the highway, unl es s hese es , or by theuse of ordinar

y careshoul d havese en, that t he other auto mob ile is in a p lace of p eril . . . .”). 6 opi ni on al s o as s um ed thatH ol m es had bee n 206 f eetf r om the poi ntof

i m pactw hen D enham had comm ence d herl ef t - hand turn. ¶10. I m por t ant l y, R aw s on opi ned that the l ack of s ki d m arks pr oved that H ol m es had not br aked, and i f

he had br aked ort aken eva s i ve act i on, t hen D enham’ s carcoul d have c l ear ed H ol m es ’ s t ruck i n the nec es s ary 3. 62 s econds
. M or eover , R aw s on concl uded that , bas ed on the abs ence of

s ki d m arks , D enham had notbeen ne gl i genti n the oper at i on of hervehi cl e. H e o p in e d th a t if D e n h a m h a d c re a ted a n im m e d iate h a z a rd w h e n tu rn in g a n d , the re fo re , d id 3 nothave the r i ghtof

w ay, then H ol m es w oul d have r eac t ed by br aki ng hi s truck, thus caus i ng
s ki d m arks on the pa vement , i n an att empt t o avoi d the col l i s i on. R aw s on concl uded that
s i nce no s ki d m arks exi s t ed, D enham had notcr eat ed an i m m edi at e haz ar d and thats he had t he r i gh to f

way. Acc or di ng l y, Rawso n s urmi s e d tha tHol mes h a d f a i l e d t o a vo i d t he
acc i dent , w hi ch w as hi s duty.

### 7

¶1 1. T he t r i al j udge r ead Raw s on’ s d e po s i t i on a nd d e t e r mi ned t hatR aw s on had not per f or m ed a true ac ci dentr econs truct i on; thatR aw s on’ s i nf or m at i on w as unr el i abl e; and that R aw s on’ s concl us i ons w er e unnec es s ary: T her e i s no acc i dentr econs truct i on done her e. T her e’ s a man w ho has qual i f i cat i ons a s a n a cci dentr econs truct i oni s t– that ’ s s t i pul at ed and a cce pt ed

– w h o c o m e s to th e sc e n e a p p ro x im a tely tw o y e a rs a fte r th e a c c id e n t to d e ter m in e lin e s o f sig h t. N o w , is th a t re lev a n t or ca n tha t be re lev a n t an d a ss ist th e trier o f fa c t fo r h im t o o ff er an op i nion on that; and the an sw er t o thati s yes. B utan ac ci dentr econs truct i oni s t ’ s s peci al i zed e xpert i s e r evol ves ar ound the r e c o n s tru c t i o n o f

t h e a c c i d e n t ; a n d h e d i d n ’ tr e c o n s tru c tth e a c c i d e n t . He extr apol at ed s om e i nf

or m at i on f

r om a pol i ce r eportand phot ogr aphs , w hi ch ar e, abs enta phot ogr aphi c expe r t , nots ui t abl e evi dent i ary m att er s f orthe re c o n stru c tio n o f a n a c c id e n t. I don’ tknow thatyou coul d do i tw i th a l ayerof expert s , butt o cal cul at e s peed you have t o unde r s t and and the r econs truct i oni s tha s t o f act ori n c rus h damage t o the vehi cl es . Ski d mar ks a r e notdet erm i ned f r om phot ogr aphs
. I know that m u c h a b o u t ac c id e n t re c o n stru c tio n , an d th a t’s w h a t h e p u rp o rts to d o , a n d h is i nf or m at i on i s notbas ed upon s uf f i ci entf act s ordat a, and t he t es t i m ony i s not a pr oductof

r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , beca us e none of any s i gni f

i canc e, otherthan a c oupl e of

m athemat i cal cal cul at i ons t hatcoul d have be en done by a hi gh s chool s tudent , w er e empl oyed i n thi s cas e, none, no coef f i ci ent s , no react i on t i m e, no ne o f the thi ng s that a true acci den tr econ struct i on cou l d u se t o benef i tthe j ury. A ny concl us i ons t hathe has thatar e acc ur at e and val i d, bas ed upon the l i m i t ed i nf or m at i on he had, ar e ce r t ai nl y s ubj ectt o be overr i dden by the conf us i on as s oci at ed w i th the concl us i ons thathe dr aw s bas ed upon i ns uf f i ci entf act s and dat a t o arr i ve atthos e conc l us i on s, som e of w hi ch ar e l egal concl us i ons that he does n’ tnece s s ar i l y need t o r enderbeca us e they ce r t ai nl y i nvade the pr ovi nce of

the j ury. I’m o f th e o p in io n th a t p re D a u b e rt, w h a tev e r, let it c o m e in. P o stD a u b e rt th is C our ti s the gat ekee perof e vi dent i ary mat t er s , part i cul ar l y expertt es t i m ony.

### 8

I am o f th e d e c id ed o p inion that u n d er the D au b ert st an d ard that the C o u rt w o u ld b e c o m m itt in g e rro r to a llo w th is te stim o n y to c o m e in a s p ro ffe re d to the C ou rt , thatb ei ng the de po si t i on thatI hav e read i n ful l nu m bered 3 1 p ages. ¶ 1 2
. T h e p la in tif

fs th e n tr ie d to a d m it p o rt io n s o f R a w so n ’s d e p o sitio n p e rta in in g to
m easurem ents and dis t ances. T he tr i al cou rtref used thi s r equ est b u tal l ow ed p l ai nti ff s’
couns el t o pr of

f erR aw s on' s depos i t i on, r eport , and curr i cul um vi t ae a s exhi bit s f or iden ti fi ca ti o n p u rpo ses o n ly. D en h am an d C aldw ell o b jected to this ruli n g , an d the tri al co u rt
ov erruled theirobj ect i on s. ¶ 1 3
. D u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, d e fe n se c o u n se l c o m m e n te d o n th e p lain tiffs’ fa ilu re to p ro v id e e x p e rt tes tim o n y a fte r p lain tif fs’ co u n sel h ad info rm ed the ju ry in o p e n in g sta tem e n ts that su ch ev iden ce w o u ld b e o ffered
. T h e re aso n the p lai n ti ffs ha d n o t o ffe red ex p ert t es t i m ony w as due t o the tr i al court ’ s excl us i on of s uch tes t i m ony. Pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el obj ect ed and moved f

ora m i s tr i al
. The tr i al c our tove rrul ed the obj ect i on, deni ed the mot i on f ora m i s tr i al , a nd di d nota dm oni s h the j ury t o di s r egar d de f ens e couns el ’ s s t at ement s . T he tri al j ud ge als o g rant ed jury instruct i on s D -4 and D -9, ov er the p l ai nti ff s’ obj ect i on s. PR O C EE D I N G S I N TH E C O U R T O F A PPE A LS ¶14. B ef

or e the C our tof

A ppeal s , D enham and C al dw el l as s ert ed thatt he t r i al courthad
err ed by: “( 1) ex c l ud i ng the t e s t i m ony of thei rexpertw i tnes s ; ( 2) al l ow i ng H ol m es ’ s att or ney to m ak e re feren ce d u ri n g clos ing arg u m en ts t o the lac k o f ex p ert t esti m o n y ; ( 3 ) gra n ti n g jury i ns truct i ons D
- 4 and D
- 9; ( 4) denyi ng thei rm ot i on f ora JN O V ; and ( 5) denyi ng thei rm ot i on fo r a n e w tr ia l.”

### 9

¶ 1 5 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v e rse d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e L a fa y e tte C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, fi nd i ng tha t t h e tr ial cou rthad abu sed i t s di scr et i on by fai l i ng t o p erm i tthe p l ai nti ff s’ acci den treconstruct i on i stt o tes t i fy; by fai l i ng t o instructthe jury to di sr egard d efense
co u n sel’s co m m en ts du ri n g clos ing arg u m en t; an d b y g ran ti n g H o lm es’s p roffere d jury i ns truct i ons D
- 4 and D
- 9. ¶16. W e r es t at e and r eor derthe as s i gnm ent s of err orf orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on. DI S CUS S I ON I . W HETH ER THE TR I AL C OU RT ERRED BY G R A N T I N G JU R Y I N ST R U C T I O N S D - 4 A N D D - 9. ¶ 1 7 . J u r y i n s tru c tio n s a re to b e re a d a s a w h o le
. Bi c kha m v. G r ant , 86 1 So
. 2d 299, 301 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng S o u th la n d E n ters., In c . v. N

e w to n Co u n ty, 83 8 S o. 2d 28 6, 28 9 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 )) . T h e tria l ju d g e h a s c o n s id e ra b le d is c re tio n in in s tru c tin g th e ju ry . I d. A def endant gener al l y i s ent i t l ed t o an i nst ruc t i on w hi ch pr es ent s hi s s i de of the ca s e; how ever , s uch in s tru c tio n m u s t c o rr e c tly s ta te th e la w . I d . ( ci t i ng Southland E nters. , Inc. , 838 So. 2d at 2 8 9 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d )). F u rth e rm o re , “ [i] t w o u ld b e e rro r to g ra n t an in stru c tio n w h ich is lik e ly to m isle a d o r c o n fu se th e ju ry a s to th e p rin c ip les o f l a w a p p lic a b le to th e fa c ts in evi dence
. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Southland E nters . , I nc. , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d a t 2 8 9 ); s ee al s o McCar

y v. Caper ton , 6 0 1 S o . 2 d 8 6 6 , 8 6 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ), overr ul ed on othergr ounds by R obinson P ro p e rty G ro u

p , L .P . v. Mitch e ll , 7 S o . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 4 -45 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). ¶18. T he C our tof

A ppeal s f

ound t hatthe tr i al j udge err ed w hen, overobj ect i on, he gr ant ed ju ry in s tru c tio n s D -4 a n d D -9
. Hol m es , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 0 3 7 4 9 4 , at *5 (¶¶ 2 3 -25 ).

### “Mi ss is sippi i s a purec om pa rati ve [
- ] ne gl ige ncest at e. ” Coho Res ., Inc . v . Chapman , 4 

### 91 3 S o. 2 d 8 99 , 91 1 (M iss. 20 05 ) (citing Miss. C od e Ann. § 11 -7-1 5 (R ev. 2 00 4)). 10 ¶19
. Instruct i on D -4 st at es: T he vi ol at i on of

any pos t ed s peed l i m i toral l egat i on s of dr i vi ng atan e x c e s s i v e s p e e d a r e o n l y r e l e v a n ti f th e p l a i n t i f

f h a s s h o wn , f

r o m a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , tha t th e sp e e d o f A d a m H o lm e s w a s th e so le pr oxi m at e ca us e orpr oxi m at e contr i but i ng caus e t o the ac ci dent
. U nl aw f ul s peed i s nota pr oxi m at e caus e of an ac ci dentcaus ed by the i nt erveni ng negl i gence of

anotherper s on. T her ef or e, s houl d you f

i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe m ot orvehi cl e ac ci dentof J ul y 15, 2004 w as the s ol e pr oxi m at e ca us e of the act i ons of

P aul a D enham, t hen any vi ol at i on of the spe ed l i m i tor a l l egat i ons of dr i vi ng atan exc es s i ve s peed a r e i rr el evantt o yourdeci s i on. ¶ 2 0
. In stru c tio n D -9 sta tes : W hen cons i der i ng w ho i s a tf aul tf ora n a cci dent , a nd/ ori nj ur i es , you m ay t ake i nt o acc ountthe conduc tof thos e w ho ar e notpa r t i es t o thi s l aw s ui t . A l though, n o t a p a rty to th is la w su it, y o u m a y c o n sid e r th e a c tio n s o r o m iss io n s o f P a u la D e n h a m in re a c h in g y o u r v e rd ict. ¶21. T he C our tof

A ppeal s he l d thatI ns truct i on D
- 4 mi s s t at ed the l aw of com parat i ve negl i gence and conf

l i ct ed w i th a s econd j ury i ns truct i on, D -10, r egar di ng as s i gni ng 4
n e g lig e n c e /f

a u lt p e rc e n ta g e s . I

d. I n a ddi t i on, the C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned thatI ns truct i on D
- 9 cl ear l y m i s s t at ed the f act s , becaus e, cont r ary t o t he l anguage of the i ns truct i on, D enham
w as a p a rt y to th e la w s u it. I d. ¶22. “D ef

ect s i n s peci f

i c i ns truct i ons do not r equi r e r ever s al ‘ w her e al l i ns truct i ons t aken
as a w h o le fair ly – altho u g h no t p erfec tl y – an n o u n ce the a p p li ca b le prim ary rules o f l aw . ’” R i char ds on v. N

or f ol k S. R y. Co. , 923 So. 2d 1002, 1011 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng B radford

### Ins tr uction D-10 wa s the f am il iar f orm -of -the- verdic t instruc ti on bas ed on 5 

### com parativenegl ige nce . The Cour t of Appea ls st at ed, in part , that “ [a ] s i t impl ie d contributor y negl ige nce , 6 

### we fin d th at juryinstru ctionD-4 was a misstatement of th e law an d w as po tentially mi sl ea ding t o thejur

y.” Hol m es , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 0 3 7 4 9 4 , at *5 (¶2 3 ).



### 11 v . B a rn e tt , 615 So. 2d 580, 583 ( M i s s . 1993) )
. V i ew i ng al l the j ury i ns truct i ons and
cons i der i ng t hes e i ns truct i ons as a w hol e, thi s C our tcannots ay thatI ns truct i on D
- 4 “f ai r l y”
a n n o u n c e d th e law . N o t o n ly d o e s In stru c tio n D -4 m iss tate th e law , b u t itc o n flicts i rr econc i l abl y w i th I ns truct i on D
- 10. 5 ¶23. T hi s C our t agr ees w i th t he C our t of A ppeal s that I ns truct i on D
- 4 i m pr oper l y s t at ed that“[ u] nl aw f

ul s peed i s nota pr oxi m at e ca us e of an ac ci dentcaus ed by the i nt erveni ng negl i gence of

anotherper s on. ” B uta gai n, ourr eas oni ng i n f i ndi ng f aul tw i th thi s i ns truct i on i s s om ew hatdi f

f er entthan thatof

the C our tof

A ppeal s . O urpr obl em w i th thi s i ns truct i on

6 i s thatthe j ury w as i nf

or m ed that , even i f

i tf ound thatH ol m es ’ s s peed at t he t i m e of t he
acc i dentw as i n exce s s of the pos t ed s peed l i m i t , and eve n i f the j ury f

ound thatthi s unl aw f

ul
s peed w as a pr oxi m at e ca us e of the acc i dent , H ol m es s t i l l c oul d a voi d c ul pabi l i ty due t o t he “i nt erveni ng negl i gence of anotherper s on, ” f

orexam pl e, D enham. L i kew i s e, cont r ary t o t he
as s ert i ons of

H ol m es thatany conf

us i on caus ed by the l anguage of the f i r s tpar agr aph of

t he ju ry in stru c tio n w a s re m e d ied b y th e se c o n d p a ra g ra p h o f th e in stru c tio n , w e fin d th a t, i n
r eadi ng the tw o pa r agr aphs of I ns truct i on D
- 4 t ogethera s a w hol e, the s econd pa r agr aph of the ju ry in stru cti o n o n ly ad d ed to th e c o n fu sio n . In th e e n d , w e find that Instruc ti o n D -4

### 12

m i s s t at ed the l aw and l i kel y conf us ed and mi s l ed the j ury, es peci al l y i n l i ghtof I ns truct i on D
- 10. ¶2 4
. F u rth e rm o re, w e d o ag ree th at, w h il e Ins tru cti o n D -9 w a s o b v io u sly in c o rre c t in
s t at i ng thatD enham w as nota party t o the l aw s ui t , on t he otherhand, D enham w as the dr i ver
o f th e o ther v eh icl e in th e ac cide n t, an d th e rec o rd rev ea ls that co u n sel for b o th the p lai n ti ffs and the defendan tr ef

err ed t o D enham as the dr i verdur i ng openi ng s t at ement s and cl os i ng
ar gum ent s . M or eover , the tr i al courtpr ovi ded a f or m - of
- the- ver di cti ns truct i on, al l ow i ng t he j ur y t o co ns i de rthe n e gl i ge nc e , i f a ny , o f b oth H ol mes a nd Denh a m w he n r e nd e r i ng t he
ver di ct . T hi s f

or m -of
- the- ver di cti ns truct i on w as cons i s t entw i th I ns truct i on D
- 9, w hi ch in stru c ted th e ju ry th a t itc o u ld c o n sid e r th e n e g lig e n c e o f D e n h a m in re a c h in g a v e rd ict. W hi l e perm i t t i ng the def endantt o of

f erI ns truct i on D
- 9 w as err or , the tr i al courtdi d not
comm i tr ever s i bl e err ori n grant i ng thi s i ns truct i on, s i nce i tw as unl i kel y t o have c onf us ed th e ju ry ’s u n d e rs ta n d in g o f t h e fa c ts in e v id e n c e . G r ant , 861 So. 2d at301 ( ci t i ng Sout hland E nters . , I

nc. , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d at 28 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶25. Forthes e r eas ons , w hi l e w e agr ee w i th t he C our tof A ppeal s thatthe tr i al court ’ s gr ant of I ns truct i on D
- 4 w as r ever s i bl e err or , w e di s agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s i n i t s f

i ndi ng that the tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of Instruc ti o n D -9 w as li k ew ise rev ersible e rror. I I . W HE T HE R T HE T RI AL C OU RT E RRE D B Y NO T I N STR U C TING TH E JU R Y TO D I SR EG A R D D EF EN SE COUNS E L ’ S S TATEM ENTS DUR I N G CLOS I N G A R G U M EN TS.

### 13

¶26. I n openi ng s t at ement s , pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el had i nf

or m ed the j ury thatexpert t es t i m ony
w ou l d sup po rta fi nd i ng that H olm es had c aused the acci den t . D u ri ng cl osi ng argum ents , af t erpl ai nt i f

f s ’ c ou ns e l di d n otof

f e ra ny e xp e r tt e s t i mony b e c a us e the tr i a l j ud ge ha d excl uded s uch t es t i m ony, def ens e couns el s t at ed: N ow they w antt o t al k aboutprope r ty dam age and w her e the vehi cl e ende d up. T her e’ s no e vi dence
. Ther e’ s no evi dence he r e of how f as tw hatcaus es w hat p rop erty d am ag e, w h at sp ee d s ca u se w h at pro p erty d am ag e. T h e p lai n ti ff, [ thr ough couns el ] , gotup and t ol d you thatyou w oul d hearf r om the w i tnes s es and you w oul d hearf

r om an expe r t s [ s i c] getup and t es t i f y. Pl ai nt i f f s ’ c ouns el obj ect ed and m oved f ora mi s tr i al
. T he tr i al c our tove rrul ed bot h t he
o b jec tio n to th e re m a rk s a n d th e m o tio n fo r a m istria l. ¶27. T he C our t of A ppeal s f ound that the tr i al j udge had comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err or i n not
s us t ai ni ng the obj ect i on and i ns truct i ng the j ury t o di s r egard thes e comm ent s m ade by d e fe n s e c o u n s e l. Hol

m es , 2010 W L 1037494, at*4 ( ¶18)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned that“H ol m es ’ s couns el ’ s comm ent s . . . w er e notm ade i n f ur ther ance of

eval uat i ng t he
e v id e n c e o r un d erstan d ing th e law ; rathe r th e co m m en ts w ere m ad e to aro u se p rejud ice in th e e y e s o f t h e ju ry .” I

d . ¶2 8. T hi s C our th a s h e l d tha t“ [ t ] he t e s ti n de t e r mi ni ng whethe ra l aw yerhas m ade an i m pr operar gum entw hi ch r equi r es r ever s al i s ‘ w hetherthe natur al and pr obabl e ef f ectof t he i m pr operar gum ent. . . cr eat es an unj us tpr ej udi ce a gai ns tthe oppos i ng party r es ul t i ng i n a deci s i on i nf

l uence d by the pr ej udi ce s o cr eat ed. ’ ” E ckm an v. Moo re , 876 So. 2d 975, 986 ( ¶38) (M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d 6 9 4 , 7 0 1 -02 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). M o reo v er, “[ t ] he o nly l egit i m at e purpose of the [ cl osi ng ] ar gu m ent of counsel i n a j ury case i s t o assi st

### 14

the j ur or s i n eval uat i ng the evi dence and i n under s t andi ng the l aw and i n appl yi ng i tt o t he f act s . ” Shell

O il Co. v. P ou , 2 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ). ¶29. I n Cle m ons v. S ta te , 320 So. 2d 368, 369 (M i s s . 1975), t he pr os ecut or s des cr i bed the evi dence – m ar i huana – a s bei ng “the s tuf f thatcaus e[ s ] peopl e t o dr ow n l i t t l e babi es ” and t o go cr azy. L at er , t he pr os ecut orar gued t hatt he def ens e had f

ai l ed t o cal l cert ai n w i tnes s es b e c a u s e th e y a ll w e re in c ri m in a l c a h o o ts a n d w e re tr y in g to p ro te c t e a c h o th e r. I d . at370. I n the s a me a r gu ment , the pr os e c ut orpo i nt e d t o o the rc r i mi na l de f e nd a nt s – i n u nr el at ed
cases – as “[ b] i rds of a feat her” w ai t i ng to be tri ed for cr i m es. I d. F in d in g th e se sta tem e n ts obvi ous l y pre

j udi ced the def

endant ’ s ri ghtt o fa i rtr i al , thi s C our tr ever s ed and r emanded. I d. at373. ¶30. I n D a v is v. S ta te , 53 0 S o. 2d 69 4, 70 1 ( M i s s . 1988) , the pr os ecut or – i n an arm edr obbery cas e – r ef

err ed t o the i nci dentas bei ng “a he artbeataw ay f r om a m as s acr e. . . . ” The jud g e a d m o n ishe d the jury to d isr eg ard this st atem en t, an d this C o u rtfou n d the p rose cu tor’s
s ta te m e n t w a s h a rm le s s . I d. at702. I n R o u n dtre e v. S ta te , 56 8 S o. 2d 11 73 , 1 17 7 (M i ss. 1 9 9 0 ), th e p ro se c u to r re m a rk e d th a t th e p e o p le o f th e c o u n ty w e re fe d u p w ith w a k in g u p in th e m o rn in g s to n e w s o f a n o th e r b o d y b e in g d isc o v e re d . T h e ju d g e a d m o n ish e d th e ju ry to d is re g a rd th is s ta te m e n t. I d . at1178. T hi s C ou rtfound the s t at ement s i m pr operbutf ound th a t th e ju d g e ’s a d m o n is h m e n t h a d c u re d a n y p re ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t. I d. ¶31. R ece nt l y, i n E ckm an , the pl ai nt i f f s t at ed thatthe phys i ci an def endantthoughthe w as “above the l aw . ” E ckm an , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d a t 9 8 7 . W e re itera ted th a t “[t]h e o n ly leg iti m a te purpos e of

the [ cl os i ng] ar gum entof c ouns el i n a j ury c as e i s t o a s s i s tthe j ur or s i n eval uat i ng

### 15

the evi dence and i n under s t andi ng t he l aw and i n appl yi ng i tt o the f act s . A ppeal s t o pas s i on
o r p re ju d ic e a re a lw a y s im p ro p e r a n d s h o u ld n e v e r b e a llo w e d .” I d. ( quot i ng Shell

O il Co. , 2 0 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 5 7 ). T h is C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d e rre d “ in fin d in g th a t th is i m pr operar gum entdi d notexce ed the bounds of the evi dence
. ” I

d . T he pl ai nt i f

f s ’ s t at ement h a d n o th in g to d o w ith th e s ta n d a rd o f c a re a t is s u e . I d. ¶ 3 2
. In tod a y ’s c a se , w e a g re e th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l m a d e th e o b jec tio n a b le s tate m e n ts w ith the i nt entof

be i ng “ pr ej udi ci al ” t o the others i de’ s c as e. The r eal i ty of oura dvocac y s ys t em is th at th e p u rp o se o f a p arty’s p rese n tat ion o f ev iden ce an d the c o m m en ts of that p arty’s
couns el , thr oughoutthe tr i al , i s t o a i d thatpa r ty’ s c as e, a nd t o “ pr ej udi ce” ( be detr i m ent al t o) the ot her pa rty’ s cas e. A s t o t he obj ect i onabl e comm ent s m ade by de f ens e couns el dur i ng
c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts in to d a y ’s c a se , th e se sta tem e n ts, w h ile p e rh a p s p re ju d icia l (d e trim e n tal) to th e p la in tif

fs ’ c a s e , w e re n o t “ u n

ju s t[l y ]” p r e

ju d ic ia l. D a v is , 530 So. 2d at701- 02. T he pl ai nt i f f s, thr ough couns el , had r emar ked i n openi ng s t at ement s thatthey w oul d i ntr oduce
e x p e rt tes tim o n y in to ev id e n c e ; ho w e v e r, ba se d o n th e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g d u rin g trial a s to the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ expert , the pl ai nt i f

f s f ai l ed ( w er e unabl e) t o pr es entthi s expertt es t i m ony. D efen se coun sel ’s bri ng i ng t o the j ury’s at t enti on this “m i ssi ng l i nk ” i n the pl ai nti ff s’
ev iden ce m o st l ikely h arm ed the p lai n ti ffs’ ca se. B u t, a cti n g a t th eir ow n p eril , the p lai n ti ffs in v ited th is c o m m e n t b y in fo rm in g th e ju ry d u rin g o p e n in g sta tem e n ts th a t th e y w o u ld p ro v id e e x p e rt te s tim o n y d u ri n g th e tr ia l b u t f a ilin g to d o s o . See T

a y lo r v. S ta te , 672 So. 2d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 6 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e S tate m a y re sp o n d in its c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts to def ens e couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o f

ol l ow thr ough on pr om i s es of pr oof t o com e m ade dur i ng

### 16

o p e n in g sta tem e n ts) ; Herr ing v. P oir r ier , 797 So. 2d 797, 804 ( M i s s . 2000) ( hol di ng t hat pl ai nt i f f m ay notm ake c om m ent s dur i ng openi ng s t at ement s and then compl ai n w hen the
o p p o s in g p a rty re a so n a b ly a ttem p ts to re sp o n d to th e m ); E c h o ls v . S ta te , 759 So. 2d 495, 497- 98 ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2000) ( r eas oni ng thatdef ens e couns el ’ s r emar ks dur i ng the openi ng
s t at ementand a s ubs equentl ack of s uppor t i ng evi dence “i nvi t ed the St at e’ s r emar ks i n t he
c lo sin g a rg u m e n t”) ; H

inton v. W

as te Techni ques Cor

p. , 36 4 A. 2d 72 4, 72 8 ( Pe nn . 19 76) ( “A n att orney [ i n a ci vi l cas e] cannotpr om i s e t o prove cer t ai n fa ct s t o t he j ury, fa i l t o pr ove them , an d then ex p ec t t o esc ap e w ith im p u n ity . ”). ¶3 3. T hus , t he C ourt of A pp e a l s s ho ul d no t ha ve f ou nd tha t de f

e ns e c ou ns e l c omm i t t ed
err orby i dent i f

yi ng a l egi t i m at e evi dent i ary w eakne s s i n t he pl ai nt i f f s ’ cas e and r ebutt i ng the pl ai nt i f f s ’ openi ng s t at ement s . T he f act s of thi s c as e ar e di s t i ngui s habl e f r om c as es i n w hi ch
w e have f

ound unj us tpr ej udi ce. Forthe f or egoi ng r eas ons , w e f

i nd the tr i al j udge di d not
com m i terrori n fai l i ng t o adm on i sh the j ury t o dis regar d these co m m ents m ade b y d efense
cou nsel du ri ng cl osi ng argum ents . I I I . W HETH ER THE TRI AL CO URT PROPERLY EXCLU DED THE P LA I NT I F F S ’ EX P ER T T ES TI M ONY. ¶34
. “T he st and ard o f revi ew for the adm i ssi on or ex cl usi on of ev i den ce, suc h as e x p ert te s tim o n y , is a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .” I n v e sto r R e s. S e rv s., In c ., v. Ca to , 15 So. 3d 412, 416 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng A dco ck v. Miss. T ra n sp . Co m m ’n , 98 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 )). T hi s C our tw i l l notoverturn a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on on an evi dent i ary i s s ue unl es s the tr i al
courta bus ed i t s di s cr et i on, m eani ng i tact ed arbi tr ar i l y and cl ear l y err oneous l y. Hubbard v.

### 17

McD onald’s Cor

p. , 41 So. 3 d 67 0, 674 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng K il hullen v. K

ansas Cit

y So. R y. , 8 S o. 3 d 16 8, 1 72 (M i ss. 2 00 9))
. “A tr i al judge’s determ i nati on as to w hethera w i tness i s qual i f i ed t o t es t i f

y as an expe r ti s gi ven the w i des tpos s i bl e di s cr et i on and thatdeci s i on
w i l l onl y be di s turbed w hen t her e has been a cl earabus e of di s cr et i on. ” W

o rthy v. McN

a ir , 37 So. 3d 609, 614 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng S h e ffie ld v. G o o dw in , 74 0 S o. 2d 85 4, 85 6 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )). ¶35. T he admi s s i bi l i ty of e xpertt es t i m ony i s e val uat ed i n l i gh tof M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 7 02 , w hich st at es: I f s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hn i c a l , o ro the rs pe c i a l i z e d kn owl e dg e wi l l a s s i s tthe tr i erof factt o u nd erstan d the evi den ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expertby know l edge, ski 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 the p roduct of r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) t he w i tnes s has appl i ed the 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. T h is ru le e m p h a siz e s th a t itis “ th e g a te[-]k e e p in g re sp o n sib ili ty o f th e trial c o u rt to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e e x p e rt tes tim o n y is re lev a n t an d re liab le.” M .R .E . 7 0 2 c m t. ¶ 3 6
. F o r e x p e rt te s tim o n y to b e a d m is s ib le , it m u s t b e b o th re le v a n t a n d re lia b le
. D au bert
v. Mer r el

l D ow P harm . , I

nc. , 509 U
. S. 579 , 5 92 -94, 1 13 S
. C t . 2786, 125 L
. E d. 2d 469 (1 9 9 3 ). “R e lev a n c e is e sta b lish e d w h e n th e e x p e rt te stim o n y is su ffic ien tly tie d to th e fa c ts of the ca s e thati tw i l l ‘ as s i s tthe tr i erof f actt o under s t and the evi dence ort o det erm i ne a f act i n i s sue. ’ ” Hu bb ard , 41 So. 3d at675 ( quot i ng D au bert , 509 U
. S. at591)
. T o be r el i abl e, “the t es t i m ony m us tbe gr ounded i n the met ho ds an d proc edur es of s ci ence , notm er el y a

### 18

su b je c tiv e b e lie f o r u n s u p p o rt e d s p e c u la tio n .” W or thy , 37 So. 2d at615 ( ci t i ng Mis s . T r ansp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )) ( cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶37. W e have s t at ed that“an expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony i s pr es um pt i vel y admi s s i bl e w hen r el evant and r el i abl e. ” Hu bb ard , 41 So. 3d at675 ( quot i ng McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at39)
. “The
w e ig h t a n d c re d ib ility o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y a re m a tte rs fo r d e te rm in a tio n b y th e tr ie r o f f a c t.” I d. (quot i ng U

n iv. Me d

. Ctr. v. Ma rtin , 994 So. 2d 740, 747 ( M i s s . 2008) ) ( ci t at i ons
om i t t ed)
. “V i gor ous cross -e xami 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 means of at t acki ng
s haky butadmi s s i bl e evi dence
. ” I d . ( quot i ng McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at36 ( quot i ng D au bert , 5 0 9 U . S
. at 59 6 )). ¶38. U l t i m at el y, i f

an expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony s ur vi ves the thr es hol d s crut i ny unde rRul e 702, it is s u b je c t to fu rt h e r r e v ie w u n d e r R u le 4 0 3
. See W or thy , 37 So. 3d at614 ( ci t i ng D au bert , 509 U
. S. a t595) ( “The [ tr i al ] j udge i n w ei ghi ng pos s i bl e pr ej udi ce a gai ns tpr obat i ve f or ce
u n d er R u le 40 3 o f th e p rese n t ru les e x erc ises m o re c o n tr o l ov er e x p erts th an lay w itn esse s. ”).

“ [E ]x p e rt e v id e n c e c a n b e b o th p o w e rf u l a n d q u ite m is le a d in g . . . .” D au bert , 509 U
. S. at 595. A ccor di ngl y, “l ack of r el i abl e s uppor tm ay r ender[ expertt es t i m ony] m or e pr ej udi ci al th a n p ro b a tiv e ” u n d e r R u le 4 0 3
. V iterbo v. D ow Chem . Co. , 8 2 6 F . 2 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 2 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ). ¶39. R aw s on’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony concl uded that , bas ed on bas i c m athemat i cs and the lack of ski d m arks, H olm es should hav e avo i ded the acc i den t . S pecif i cal l y, R aw so n ’s depos i t i on t es t i m ony concl uded thatD enham w as n ot ne gl i gentand di d notcr eat e an

### 19

im m e d iate h a z a rd w h e n tu rn in g , b e c a u se th e re w e re n o sk id m a rk s. D e n h a m a n d C a ld w e ll
ar gued thatthe tr i al courtshoul d have adm i t t ed t hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony beca us e “s ever al of the j ury i ns truct i ons hi nged on the s peed of H olm es’ s vehi cl e and di s t ance betw een the vehi cl es . ” D enham , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 0 3 7 4 9 4 , at *3 (¶1 1 ). ¶4 0. T he C our tof

A pp e a l s a gr e e d, f

i nd i ng tha tRawso n’ s d e pos i t i on t es t i m ony “w as t echni cal i n natur e and w oul d have a s s i s t ed the j ury i n under s t andi ng the evi dence and det erm i ni ng the f

act s i n i s s ue. ” Hol

m es , 2010 W L 1037494, at*3 ( ¶14)
. T he C ou r tof A ppeal s f

ur therf ound t hat , becaus e t he “t es t i m ony w as bas ed on the f act s avai l abl e f

r om t he
a c c id e n t s c e n e . . . th e n th is te s tim o n y s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m itte d .” I d . A nd the C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned that , beca us e the j ury had no expertt es t i m ony f r om w hi ch t o det erm i ne the negl i gence of

the part i es , the j ury “ di d notha ve s uf f i ci enti nf or m at i on f

r om w hi ch t o r eac h
a ver di ct . ” I

d. ¶41. I n Hol

lingswort

h v. B ovair d Suppl

y Co. , 4 6 5 S o . 2d 3 1 1 , 3 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ), this C o u rt f i r s thel d thata pr oper l y qual i f i ed and exami ned expertw i tnes s coul d pr ovi de t es t i m ony on i s s ues of ul t i m at e f

actre gar di ng the ca us e of carw r ecks w i thouti nvadi ng the j ury’ s pr ovi nce – essent i al l y p l aci ng acci den trecon struct i on i stex pert s on eq ual f oo t i ng w i th otherexp ert s. U n d er D au bert , how ever , Raw s on’ s t es t i m ony musts t i l l be both r el evanta nd rel i able
. D au bert , 509 U
. S. at591- 2. 1. R elevance ¶42. T hi s C ourt agrees t hat R aw s on’ s bas i c m athemat i cs and t i m i ng es t i m at es , bas ed on H o lm e s ’s p ro fe s s e d s p e e d , w e re re le v a n t. See Ca to , 15 So. 3 d at418 ( di s cus s i ng the l ow

### Raw sonind icated inhis rep ort th at no physical ev iden ce permittedhim to test 7 

### Ho lmes’s speed
. 20 thr es hol d f

orr el evantevi dence )
. B oth the C our tof A ppeals an d the tr i al courtagr eed that R a w so n ’s tim in g a n d d ista n c e e stim a tes w o u ld h a v e a ss iste d th e trier o f fa c t. 2. R eliabilit

y ¶4 3
. H o w ev e r, c o n tra ry to th e la n g u a g e in th e C o u rt o f A p p ea ls’ o p inion , the m ere exi s t ence of

expertt es t i m ony– bas ed on t he f act s avai l abl e f

r om an ac ci dents cene – does not
m ean thatthi s t es t i m ony, al though t echni cal i n natur e, s houl d be admi t t ed as a mat t erof
c o u rs e . See M .R .E . 7 0 2 (“ If . . . tec h n ica l . . . k n o w led g e w ill a ss ist th e trier o f fa c t to
u n d e rsta n d th e e v id e n c e o r to d e ter m in e a fa c t in iss u e , a w itn e ss . . . m a y tes tify th e re to in th e fo rm o f a n o p in io n o r o th e rw ise , if (1 ) th e tes tim o n y is ba se d u p o n su ffic ien t fac ts o r d a ta

. . . . ”). ¶44. R aw s on’ s de pos i t i on t es t i m ony r evea l s thatRaw s on con cl ud ed H olm es had been sp e e d in g . T h is o p in io n is ba se d o n H o lm e s’s ad m itt e d es tim a ted sp e e d
. B a se d o n th is
es t i m at ed s peed, R aw s on per f or m ed s om e bas i c mat hemat i cal cal cul at i ons t o det erm i ne the di s t ance betw een H ol m es ’ s carand D enham’ s car . H e al s o vi ew ed s ever al phot ogr aphs and 7 det erm i ned no s ki d m arks exi s t ed. H e t hen m ade a s econd conc l us i on: t hatD enham had not b e e n n e g lig e n t an d th a t H o lm e s h a d fa iled to a v o id th e a c c id e n t. R a w so n re a so n e d th a t, b a se d o n th e lac k o f sk id m a rk s, H o lm e s h a d n o t atte m p ted to a v o id th e a c c id e n t: [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : I f

I under s t and i tr i ght , tr avel i ng at- - i n excess of the s peed l i m i tw as - - the bas i s of youropi ni on w as s i m pl y the 45 mi l es perhour w ritten o n th e p o lice re p o rt.

### At tri al , Holme s t es ti fi ed that he ha d tol d poli cethat hees timate d his s pee d t o have 8 

### beenbetw een fo rty an d fo rty-fiv e miles per h our. He also testified th at he h ad slo wedto thirtymiles per h our wh en D enh am’s car hadturn ed into h is lane. 21 [R a w so n ]: T h a t’s c o rre c t. [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : N othi ng el s e? [R a w s o n ]: N o th in g e ls e . [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : T he f

ai l ur e t o t ake appr opr i at e act i on – and w hen you s ay th a t, are y o u sa y in g to a v o id th e a c c id e n t? [R aw so n ] : Y es, si r. [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : O kay
. F ai l ur e t o t ake appr opr i at e ac t i on t o avoi d the acc i dent , i ti s s i m pl y by no evi dence of s ki ddi ng, no s ki dm arks on the p a v e m e n t? [R a w so n ]: T h a t’s c o rre c t. R aw s on could no tper f or m any t es t s t o conf

i r m ordi s pr ove H ol m es ’ s es t i m at ed cons t ant
s peed of forty- f i ve m i l es perhour. A s t he C our tof A ppeal s acknow l edged, l i t t l e phys i cal 8
e v id e n c e in th is c a se len t it se lf to e x p e rt a n a ly sis in th e fie ld o f a c c id e n t re c o n stru c tio n to a id the j ury. ¶ 4 5 . Re v i e wi n g R a ws o n ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d o n th e l i m i t e d e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e , we cannots ay the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng thi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony t o be
unr el i abl e as expertt es t i m ony w i th r egar d t o R aw son’s ul t i m at e conc l us i on conce r ni ng
caus at i on and avoi dance
. B utw e agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s t o t he ext entthatthe tr i al
courts houl d have perm i t t ed R aw s on t o of f erhi s t i m i ng and di s t ance es t i m at es t o ai d the j ur y. A . T im in g & D istan ce E stim ates ¶4 6
. R a w so n ’s u lti m a te c o n clus ion – that H o lm es sh o u ld ha v e av o ided th e a c c id e n t

– as s um ed t hat H ol m es ’ s es t i m at ed s peed w as corr ectand f ur theras s um ed thatH ol m es had
c o n sta n tly m a in tain e d h is e stim a ted ra te o f sp e e d u n til im p a c t.

### 22

¶47. R aw s on’ s t es t i m ony hi nges on pr eci s e t i m i ng – the di f f er ence betw een 3. 12 s econds and 3. 62 s econds
. I f

thes e as s um pt i ons w er e i ncorr ect , then H ol m es w oul d nothave be en 206 f eetaw ay f

r om the pl ai nt i f

f’ s carw hen i tbe gan t o turn. Conseque nt l y, hi s concl us i ons reg ard ing acc iden t av o idan ce an d th e fac t that D en h am did n o t cre ate a n im m ed iat e h az ard
m os tl i kel y w oul d have be en al t er ed. ¶48
. E vident i ary w eakn esses st em m i ng fr om a l ack of ph ysi cal evidence i n the p l ai nti ff s’
c a s e s h o u ld n o t in d u c e th e in tr o d u c tio n o f u n re li a b le e x p e rt te s tim o n y . See M . R . E . 702. G ener al l y, h ow ever, w hen expe r topi ni on i s bas ed on r el i abl e met hodol ogy, the f act s as
a p p lie d in th e m e th o d o lo g y a re a c r e d ib il it y d e te rm in a tio n fo r t h e ju ry . See T r eas ure B ay C o rp . v. R i card , 96 7 S o . 2d 12 3 5 , 12 4 0 (M iss. 20 0 7 ). H ere , R aw so n rel ied o n b a sic
m at he mat i c s – a n o bv i ou s l y r e l i a bl e metho do l og y –t o c r e a t e hi s t i mi ng a nd di s t ance
es t i m at es . I n r eac hi ng hi s concl us i ons , R aw s on appl i ed f act s i n the r ecor d, i ncl udi ng H o lm es’s e sti m ated sp ee d o f forty-fi v e m il es p er h o u r. ¶ 4 9
. W h ile R a w so n ’s tim in g a n d d ista n c e e stim a tes a rg u a b ly w e re s h a k y , th e c re d ib ili ty
o f t h is p o rt io n o f R a w s o n ’s d e p o s itio n w a s a n is s u e fo r t h e tr ie r o f f a c t. See id. (“ [E ]xp e rts i n m any f

i el ds , i ncl ud i ng m edi ci ne, acc i dentr econs truct i on and f or ens i c pathol ogy, fre q u e n tly re ly o n h isto rie s p ro v id e d b y p a tien ts a n d w itn e ss e s.” ); s ee al s o Hu bb ard , 41 So. 3d at675 ( quot i ng McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at36 ( quot i ng D au bert , 5 0 9 U . S
. at 59 6 )) ( “V i gor ous cr os s - exami nat i on, pre s ent at i on of c ontr ary evi dence , and ca r ef ul i ns truct i on on the bur den of

pr oof ar e the tr adi t i onal and appr opr i at e means of att acki ng s haky but ad m issi b le ev iden ce . ”).

### 23

¶50. M or eover , al though the t ri al judge exp res sed co ncern overw hetherR aw s on had per f or m ed a true acc i dentr econs truct i on, thi s Courtf i nds thatR aw s on’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng h is t im ing an d d ist an ce esti m ates, ba se d o n co m m o n m athe m ati cs, did co n sti tute ex p ert t es t i m ony i n the f

i el d of acc i dentr econs truct i on. A l though jur ors coul d have pe r f or m ed R a w so n ’s c o m m o n c a lcu latio n s, R a w so n c o llec ted d a ta f ro m th e a c c id e n t u sin g h is
s peci al i zed know l edge. H e m eas ur ed si ghtdi s t ance s , t i m ed car s , and det erm i ned the l ocat i on of the ac ci dentf

r om the ava i l abl e evidence. H e i nt erpr et ed thi s evi dence and, ul t i m at el y, b a s e d o n th i s l i mi t e d e v i d e n c e , h e r e a c h e d c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u tc a u s a t i o n a n d a v o i d a n c e . As appl i ed m athemat i cal l y a nd a tthe acc i dents i t e, Raw s on’ s e xperta nal ys i s and m et hods regar ding t i m i ng and di s t ance es t i m at es , w er e beyond the ave r age j ur or ’ s “comm on k n o w le d g e ” a n d s h o u ld h a v e b e e n p re s e n te d to th e ju ry . 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 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); Sm ith v. A m eristar Casin o V i cksbu rg , I

nc. , 991 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 0 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); s ee als o 9 A m . J ur . 3d P ro o f o f Fa c ts § 1 1 5 , 4 ( 2010) (T ri al courts houl d admi texpertt es t i m ony i f r el yi ng on the “‘ know l edge a nd appl i cat i on of

pr i nci pl es of

phys i cs , engi neer i ng, a nd others ci ence s [ i s ] beyond the ken of the a v era g e juro r. ’”).

B . L ack of

Ski d Marks ¶51
. U n d er D au bert , a l l o f Rawso n’ s r e l e va ntc on c l us i on s , how ever , m us thave been
s uf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e. W e f

i nd thatR aw s on’ s ul t i m at e conc l us i on r egar di ng caus at i on and avoi dance w as notsuf

f i ci ent l y re l i abl e. B as ed on t he l ack of ski d m arks , R aw s on concl uded thatD enham had notnegl i gent l y caus ed an i m m edi at e haz ar d w hen s he had turned i n f r ont

### 24

of H ol m es . R aw s on r eas oned thati f D enham had caus ed an i m m edi at e haza r d, then H ol m es
w oul d have appl i ed hi s br akes and l ef ts ki d m arks ors w erve m arks
. A nd s i nce no s ki d m arks
e x iste d , ac c o rd in g to R a w so n , D e n h a m c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n n e g lig e n t. ¶ 5 2
. B u t o th e r th a n sp e a k in g g e n e ra lly a b o u t c re a tin g im m e d iate h a z a rd s a n d p o in tin g to t he l ack of

s ki d m arks , R aw s on’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony nevercl ear l y expl ai ned undert he l i mi t e d ph ys i c a l e vi de nc e why s ki d marks wer e r e qu i r e d f ora f i nd i ng tha tH ol m es had
a ttem p ted to a v o id th e a c c id e n t: [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : N ow , w e ca n agr ee t hati n the gene r al cour s e of tr af f i c, di s r e ga r di ng the e ve nt s of thi s a c c i de nt , i n the ge ne r a l c ou r s e of t r af f i c, vehi cl es notturni ng l ef

ta nd i n c l ears i ght , they w oul d have the r i ght
- of
- w ay t o vehi cl es turni ng l ef

ton the ea s tbound l ane? [ R aw s on] : U nl es s they cr eat ed an i m m edi at e haz ar d?

. . . . [D e fe n se A tto rn e y ]: O k a y . S o in th is c a se , M s. D e n h a m c re a ted a n im m e d iate haza r d? [R a w so n ]: N o , sh e d id n ’t. [D e fe n se A tto rn e y ]: A n d so in th is c a se , if sh e d id n ’t c re a te a n im m e d iate haza r d, then how does M r . H ol m es nothave the r i ght
- of
- w ay? [R a w so n ]: H e d id n ’t a ttem p t to a v o id th e a c c id e n t. [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : O kay. A nd i f I ’ m c l ear– I ’ m notcl ear . C an you s t at e that agai n? [R a w s o n ]: H a d s h e c re a te d a n im m e d ia te h a z a rd , sh e w o u ld h a v e c a u se d h im t o r e s pond by l oc ki ng hi s br ak e s o r s wer vi ng l e f t o r r i ght t o t ake im m e d ia te e v a s iv e a c ti o n . S h e d i d n o t . S h e ma d e h e rtu rn i n s u f f i c i e n tt i me fo r h im to h a v e slo w e d b y n o rm a l b ra k e a n d still av o id th e a c c id e n t. [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : O kay. A nd how does thats i tuat i on – how does that el i m i nat e hi s r i ght
- of

- w ay? [ R aw s on] : W el l , the l aw s ays i f s om eone i s turni ng and they don’ tcr eat e an i m m edi at e haz ar d, they have the r i ght
- of
- w ay.

. . . . [ D efense A t t orney] : A nd i s thatthe bas i s of youropi ni on thatM s . D enham hel d no negl i gence , i s the f actthatthe rul es of

the r oad s t at e thatw hen a v e h i c l e i s tu r n i n g l e f

ta n d tu r n s – I ’ m s o rry . I j u s t– i f y o u c a n s t a t e th a tf

o rme ag ain s o I’m clea r.

### Onthe o ther h and , Ho lmes testified th at, on ce Denham h ad pu lled in front of him, 9 

### he slo wedhis tru ck to a speedof th irty miles p er ho ur inan effo rt to av oidthe accid ent. 25 [ R aw s on] : O kay. I f

the vehi cl e thatm akes a l ef tturn acr os s t raf

fi c d oes not cre ate a n im m ed iat e h az ard , the o n co m ing tr affic ha s to y iel d to h im o r he r. [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : So i f

you m ake a l ef

tturn acr os s oncomi ng tr af f i c, the oncomi ng tr af

f i c then has the duty t o yi el d t o you? [R aw so n ] : Y es, si r. [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : W hi ch, I gues s , w oul d be the bas i s f oryouropi ni on that h e sh o u ld h a v e a v o id e d th e a c c id e n t? [R aw so n ] : Y es, si r. ( E m phas i s added. ) B as ed s i m pl y on the abs ence of ski d m arks , R aw s on concl uded that D enham had notbe en negl i genta nd thatD enham had the r i ghtof w ay. Raw son als o
c o n c lu d e d th a t H o lm e s h a d n o t atte m p ted to a v o id th e a c c id e n t. 9 ¶53. E ven though “[ v] i gor ous cr os s - exami nat i on, pr es ent at i on of c ontr ary e vi dence , and
car ef ul i ns truct i on on the bur den of pr oof ar e the tr adi t i onal and appr opr i at e means of att acki ng shaky butadm i s s i bl e evi dence [ , ] ” t hi s C our tcannots ay thatthe tr i al j udge ac t ed
arbi tr ar i l y by f

i ndi ng thatRaw s on’ s ul t i m at e concl us i on r egar di ng caus at i on and avoi dance di d n ots a t i s f

y D a u b ert’s re lia b ility s ta n d a rd
. Hu bb ard , 41 So. 3d at675 ( quot i ng McL em ore , 863 So. 2d a t36 ( quot i ng D au bert , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 5 9 6 )) . “ [N ]o th in g in
. . . D au bert

. . . req u ire s a . . . co u rt t o ad m it o p in io n ev id e n c e w h ich is co n n e c ted to e x istin g d a ta o n ly by the i ps e di xi tof

t he expe r t . A courtm ay conc l ude thatther e is si m pl y t oo gr eatan
a n a ly tic a l g a p b e tw e e n th e d a ta a n d th e o p in io n p ro ff e re d .” W att s v. R adiatorSpecialt

y Co. , 9 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ).

### 26

¶54. W hi l e thi s C our thas al l owed, w he n app r op r i a t e , a n a c c i dentr econs truct i oni s tt o opi ne
as t o ul t i m at e concl us i ons re gar di ng caus at i on, R aw s on’ s ul t i m at e conc l us i on as art i cul at ed i n hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony, bas ed on the l ack of s ki d mar ks , cont ai ned an obvi ous “ana l yt i cal g a p .” T h e re fo re , w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in e x c lu d in g th is t es t i m ony. Si m pl y s t at ed, R aw s on fa i l ed t o connec tthe dot s betw een the s ki d m arks and the exi s t i ng phys i cal evi dence ; thus , as f ound by the tr i al j udge, hi s concl us i on r egar di ng
caus at i on w as unr el i abl e. ¶ 5 5 . M o re o v e r, R a w so n ’s c o n c lu sio n re g ard ing w h ethe r D en h a m h a d c re a ted a n im m e d iate h a z a rd w a s n o t b a s e d o n s p e c ia liz e d , te c h n ic a l, o r s c ie n tif ic k n o w le d g e . See M . R . E . 702 (r equi r i ng “s ci ent i f

i c, t echni cal , [ or ] s peci al i zed know l edge” )
. A s pr evi ous l y m ent i oned, R aw son o pine d that, b ec au se n o sk id m ark s w ere p rese n t i n the b l ack-and -w hit e ph otographs, H o lm es d id n o t attem p t t o av o id th e a c c id e n t, alth o u g h h e h ad a d u ty to d o so . H o w ev er, H ol m es t es t i f

i ed thathe di d br ake t o avoi d the ac ci dent , pr obabl y s l ow ed t o thi r ty m i l es per hou r , a nd s ou gh tt o c i r c umve ntDenh a m’ s c a ri n the g r a ve l l oto f f the h i gh w a y w he r e t he col l i s i on occurr ed. D urham, H ol m es ’ s pas s enger , s t at ed thatD enh am’s vehi cl e had pul l ed in fro n t o f H o lm e s’s tru c k a t th e las t se c o n d . O n th e o th e r h a n d , D e n h a m a n d C a ld w e ll t es t i f i ed thatthey neve rs aw H ol m es ’ s truck appr oachi ng, and thathe m us thave be en dr i vi ng

“ c ra z y fa s t.” ¶5 6
. W ith o u t cl ea rl y tying the p h y sic a l e v id e n c e to th e la c k o f skid m ark s, R aw so n ’s
s pecul at i on “on the i m pl i cat i on of the l ack of

s ki d m arks w oul d nothave be en s uper i ort o a
c o n c lu s io n a ju ry c o u ld [h a v e d ra w n ] f o r t h e m s e lv e s ” a n d , th e re fo re , w a s n o t n e c e s s a ry . See

### 27

G ar nett v. G ov’t E m ployee s I

ns. Co. , 1 8 6 P .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 4 6 (O k la. 2 0 0 8 ); P al m er , 564 So. 2d at1355 ( M i s s . 1990) ( “Exper tt es t i m ony i s r equi r ed unl es s the mat t eri n i s s ue i s w i thi n t he
c o m m o n k n o w led g e o f la y m e n .”); Scott v. Sears, R oebuck & Co. , 7 8 9 F .2 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 5 (4 th C i r . 1986) ( “[ E ] xpertt es t i m ony i s unneces s ary . . . w hen or di nary exper i ence w oul d r ender the ju ry c o m p eten t t o d ec ide th e issu e.”). ¶5 7. “A t r i al j udge’ s det e r mi na t i on a s t o whethe ra w i tne s s i s qu a l i f i e d t o t e s t i f

y a s an experti s gi ven the w i des tpos s i bl e di s cr et i on . . . . ” W or thy , 37 So. 3d at614 ( quot i ng U ni v. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. P ou n ders , 97 0 S o . 2d 14 1 , 14 6 (M iss. 20 0 7 )). V iew in g R a w so n ’s depos i t i on t es t i m ony i n i t s ent i r ety, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al j udge di d nota bus e hi s di s cr et i on by notal l ow i ng int o evi dence expertt es t i m ony thatw as cl ear l y s pecul at i ve and ba s ed on in su ffic ien t d a ta. B u t th e trial c o u rt d id a b u se its d isc re tio n b y n o t p e rm itt in g th e ju ry to
w ei gh the cr edi bi l i ty of R aw s on’ s di s t ance a nd t i m i ng es t i m at es , w hi ch l ar gel y w er e bas ed on f act s i n the r ecor d and w oul d have a i ded the j ury. CO NC L US I ON ¶58. W e agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s ’ f

i ndi ng thatthe tr i al judge err ed by gr ant i ng I ns truct i on D
- 4, butw e di s agr ee w i th t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ fi ndi ng t hatt he tr i al j udge err ed i n gr ant i ng I ns truct i on D
- 9. W e di sagree w i t h the C our tof A ppeal s ’ f

i ndi ng thatthe tr i al ju d g e c o m m itt e d e rro r b y n o t in stru c tin g th e ju ry to ig n o re d e fe n s e c o u n se l’s c o m m e n ts dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s conce r ni ng the pl ai nt i f fs ’ i nabi l i ty t o pr ovi de expe r tt es t i m ony. D e fe n se c o u n se l’s s tate m e n ts d id n o t u n ju stly p re

ju d ice th e p lain tiffs. F in a lly , w e a g re e in p a rt a n d d isa g re e in p a rt w ith the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ fin d in g tha t th e tri a l j u d g e e rro n e o u slyR aw s on’ s qual i f i cat i ons as an expe rti n acci dentr econs truct i on have notbeen 10 chal l enged. 

### 28 ex clud ed the testi m o n y o f th e p lai n ti ffs’ exp ert. In v iew ing the e n ti rety o f R aw so n ’s d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y , w e fin d th a t th e lea rn e d trial ju d g e d id n o t er r in p e rfo rm in g h is ro le
as gat ekee perunderM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vidence 702 and D au bert reg ard ing R aw so n ’s
u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n s. B u t w e lik e w ise a re c o n stra in e d to fin d th a t th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is dis cret i on i n d i sal l ow i ng R aw son’s t est i m on y co ncerni ng t i m i ng and dis t ance e st i m at es. ¶59
. In sum , based on today’s dis cussi on , w e aff i rm the judgm ent of

the C ou rtof A pp eal s, al tho ug h ford i ff

erentreas on s, and w e revers e t he tr i al -courtj ud gm ent and rem and this case t o the C i r cui tC our tof

L af ayett e C ounty forfurtherproc eedi ngs consi s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 6 0
. T HE J UD GMEN T O F T HE C OU R T O F A P P E A L S I S AF F I RMED . T HE JU D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F L A F A Y E T T E C O U N T Y IS R E V E R S E D A N D T H E C A S E I S R E M A N D E D . W AL LE R, C. J . , LA M AR, CHANDLER A ND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S , J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D B Y D I CK I NS ON , P . J . , A ND RA ND OL P H, J . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . K IT C H E N S , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶61. I di s agr ee w i th t he m aj or i ty’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he t r i al cour tdi d notabuse i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng D onal d R aw s on’ s expertt es t i m ony r egar di ng the l ack of ski d m ar ks , as t hey
r el at ed t o caus at i on a nd a voi dance of the acc i dent
. I n al l otherr es pect s , I concurw i t h t he

10
m aj or i ty.

### 29

¶62. I agr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s s um m ary of the D au bert st andar d; how ever , I di s agr ee
w i th i t s concl us i on t hatR aw s on’ s opi ni on, as i tr el at ed t o the l ack of s ki d m arks , w as
u n re lia b le a n d in a d m is s ib le
. See D auber t v. M er r el l D ow P harm . , I

nc. , 509 U
. S. 579, 592- 9 4 , 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 ). ¶ 6 3
. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2 p ro v id e s: If sci ent i f i c, t echni cal orothers 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 fac t i n iss ue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expertby 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 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 est i m on y i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es a nd met hods , a nd ( 3) the w i tnes s ha s appl i ed the 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 . “R ul e 702 s eeks t o e ncour age the us e of expertt es t i m ony i n non- opi ni on f or m w hen couns el b e liev e s th e trier [o f fa c t] c a n d ra w th e re q u isite in fe re n c e .” M iss . R . E v id . 7 0 2 c m t. A ddi t i onal l y, i ti s pos s i bl e f ora n e xpertt o s ugges tthe i nf er ence w hi ch s houl d be dr aw n f r om
a p p ly in g h is s p e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e to th e fa c ts . I d. M or eover , “[ t ] hi s C our thas perm i t t ed the t es t i m ony of

qual i f i ed ac ci dentr econs truct i on expert s t o gi ve opi ni ons on how an
acc i denthappened, t he poi ntof i m pact , t he angl e of t r avel , t he r es pons i bi l i ty of the part i es i nvol ved, and the i nt erpr et at i on of phot ogr aphs
. ” Fiel

derv. Magnolia B eve r age Co. , 757 So. 2d 925, 937- 38 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng Mil lerv. Sti glet , I nc. , 5 2 3 S o . 2 d 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ); Hol lingswort

h v. B ovair d Suppl

y Co. , 4 6 5 S o . 2 d 3 1 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ))
. ¶64. “I ti s notnece s s ary t hatone of f er i ng t o t es t i f

y as an expe r tbe i nf

al l i bl e orpos s es s the hi ghes tdegr ee of

s ki l l ; i ti s s uf

f i ci enti f thatper s on pos s es s es pecul i arknow l edge or i nf or m at i on r egar di ng the r el evants ubj ectm att erw hi ch i s notl i kel y t o be pos s es s ed by a

### 30

l ayman. ” Ho o ten v . S ta te , 492 So. 2d 948, 948 ( M i s s . 1986) ( ci t i ng He n ry v. S ta te , 484 So. 2d 1012 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. I n thi s cas e, R aw son had been empl oyed w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Saf

ety Patr ol si nce 1968, and, overt he cour s e of hi s em pl oym entand t r ai ni ng, he had bec om e an experti n the f i el d of a cci dentr econs truct i on, w hi ch had l ed t o hi s t eac hi ng and publ i s hi ng l i t er atur e i n thatf i el d. C l ear l y, R aw s on pos s es s ed part i cul arknow l edge a nd i nf or m at i on r egar di ng acc i dentr econs truct i on thatl ayper s ons us ual l y do nothave. ¶65. I n hi s depos i t i on, R aw s on concl uded that H ol m es had been tr avel i ng i n exce s s of t he pos t ed s peed l i m i tand thathe had f ai l ed t o t ake appr opr i at e eva s i ve acti on to avoi d t he
acc i dent
. R aw s on’ s r eportpr ovi ded an expl anat i on f ore ach of

hi s f i ndings. S peci f

i cal l y, R a w so n ’s r e p o rt sa id th a t: 1
. T h e P o n ti ac stop p ed ea stbo u n d o n U n ive rsity A v e[. ] to init iat e a left turn i nt o a pri vat e dr i ve. T hi s opi ni on i s bas ed upon my re vi ew of the C r as h R eportf

i l ed by the Sher i f

f’ s of f i ce. 2. A s the Pont i ac w as m aki ng a l ef tturn i tw as s truck i n t he f r ontr i ght sid e b y the fro n t left o f th e w e stb o u n d C h e v ro let P U . T h is o p in io n is bas ed on my observat i on of the s cene and vehi cl e phot os as w el l as plai nti ff’s st at em ents . 3
. T h e A re a o f Im p a c t w a s lo c a te d a t t h e n o rt h e d g e o f U n iv e rs ity A v e [.] a n d th e mi d d l e o f

th e p r i v a t e d r i v e . Th i s o p i n i o n i s a r e s u l to f my obs ervat i on of

a phot o depi ct i ng a t i r e s cuf f i n the gr avel ar ea. 4
. T h e im p ac t rotated the P o n ti ac co u n tercloc k w ise ca u sing a se co n d ary col l i s i on of

the P on t i ac r earr i ghts i de w i th the r earl ef ts i de of the C h ev rolet P U . O p inion b ase d o n the p h o tos sh o w ing the s ec o n d ary damage. 5. T her e w as no s ki d m arks pri or t o i m pact . O pi ni on i s bas ed on the absenc e of ski d m arks i n the pho t os. 6
. T h e P o n ti ac w as ab le t o acc elerate to the im p ac t i n 3
. 1 3 sec o n d s b efo re being hitand cou l d h ave clear ed the w estb o u n d lane i n 3
. 62 second s. T hi s opi ni on w as bas ed on t i m ed ca r s maki ng a l ef tturn atthe col l i s i on s i t e.

### 31

7. T he PU w as appr oxi m at el y 206 f eetf r om i m pactw i th a c l earvi ew of the s cene w hen the Pont i ac e nt er ed hi s l ane. T hi s opi ni on i s bas ed on the C r as h R eporti n w hi ch the C hevr ol etPU dr i veres t i m at ed hi s s peed at45 m ph, opi ni on #6 and my observat i ons atthe s cene . 8. T he s peed of

t he PU w as 45 m i l es perhouron i m pact . O pi ni on bas ed on the est i m at ed speed of the P U dri ver and the absen ce of ski d m arks. 9. T her e i s nota m ethod t o det erm i ne s peed of the vehi cl e’ s s peed us i ng p h y sical ev iden ce . T h is o p inio n i s ba sed on th e u se o f cons er vat i on of l i near m om entum nor m al l y us ed i n the ca s e t o det erm i ne s peeds , but nece s s ary dat a i s notavai l abl e bec aus e: a. T he s i t e has been a l t er ed due t o construct i on i n the pos ti m pact areas . b. T he s econda r y col l i s i on has s om e i nputi n spee d and di r ect i on. 1 0
. U sin g th e p o ste d s p e e d lim it o f 4 0 m p h , the P U c o u ld h a v e re a c ted to the ca rturni ng a nd a ppl i ed nor m al br aki ng and the Pont i ac w oul d not cr eat e an i m m edi at e haz ar d. T hi s w oul d have al l ow ed the PU t o s l ow t o 31 m ph and w oul d ha ve al l ow ed the cart o c l earthe l ane i n the 3. 62 s econds r equi r ed bec aus e he w ou l d arr i ve atthe ar ea of i m pact3. 72 s econds af

t erper cept i on. T hi s opi ni on i s a ca l cul at ed val ue us i ng the sp ee d li m ito f 40 m p h , the n o rm al bra k ing v alue an d the s tan d a rd per cept i on- r eac t i on t i m e. 11. Fr om the s peed of 40 m ph ( pos t ed spe ed l i m i t )
. T he dr i vercoul d have sto p p e d the P U in 1 9 4 fee t by rea c tin g an d loc k in g h is b ra k e s. T h is is 12 f eetpr i ort o i m pact . T hi s opi ni on i s a ca l cul at ed val ue bas ed on t he r oad s ur f ace ’ s coef

f i ci entof f r i ct i on. (E m p h a s is in o ri g in a l.) ¶66. T he maj or i ty as s ert ed that“R aw s on f ai l ed t o connec tthe dot s bet w een the s ki d m arks and the exi s t i ng phys i cal evi dence ; t hus , as f ound by the tr i al j udge, hi s concl us i on r egar di ng
caus at i on w as unr el i abl e. ” M aj
. O p. at¶ 54. H ow ever , R aw s on’ s r eportpr ovi ded a ba s i s f or
eac h of hi s f i ndi ng s, i ncludi ng speci fi c fi nd i ng s based o n the acci den treport , acci den tph otos, the p o sted sp ee d li m it , H o lm es’s a d m itted s p ee d , the n o rm al bra k ing v alue , the s tand ard per cept i on- r eact i on t i m e, the r oad s ur f ace ’ s coef

f i ci entof f r i ct i on, and hi s per s onal obs ervat i ons of

the s cene .

### 32

¶67. I a gr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s as s ert i on that“N othi ng i n D au bert re q u ire s a c o u rt to admi topi ni on evi dence w hi ch i s connec t ed t o exi s t i ng dat a onl y by the ip se d ixit of the expert . A co urtm ay concl ude thatther e i s s i m pl y t oo gr eatan ana l yt i cal gap betw een the dat a and the opi ni on pr of f er ed, ” M aj
. O p. a t¶ 53 ( quot i ng W att s v. R adiatorSpecialt

y Co. , 990 So. 2d 143, 149 ( M i s s . 2008))
. H ow ever , as evi dence d by R aw s on’ s re por t , ther e w as
s uf f i ci entevi dence i n t he r ecor d t o “conne ctthe do t s” of R aw s on’ s opi ni on r egar di ng the la c k o f s k id m a rk s , m a k in g h is e x p e rt o p in io n re lia b le a n d a d m is s ib le
. ¶68. M or eover , R aw s on’ s r eportw as dat ed J une 11, 2 00 6, an d his tr i al depos i t i on w as t aken on J ul y 3, 2006. Pr i ort o t he depos i t i on, H ol m es w as on not i ce of R aw s on’ s opi ni ons and thei rbase s . A s s uch, H ol m es coul d have c hal l enged Raw s on’ s opi ni ons by conduct i ng a vi gor ous exami nat i on of R aw s on, and he coul d have pr es ent ed contr ary evi dence thr ough
a n e x p e rt w itn e s s o f h is o w n . See Miss. T ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 36 (M i ss. 2 003) ( quot i ng D au bert , 509 U
. S. at595- 96) ( “V i gor ous cr os s exami nat i on, pr es ent at i ons of

contr ary evi dence , and ca r ef ul i ns truct i on on the bur den of pr oof ar e the tr ad it ion al an d ap p rop ri ate m ea n s o f att ac k ing sh ak y b u t adm issi b le ev iden ce . ”). ¶ 6 9
. H o w e v e r, H o lm e s d id n o t a ttem p t to c h a llen g e th e b a se s o f R a w so n ’s o p in io n s u n til his or e t enus D au bert

m ot i on on t he f

i r s td ay of

t r i al , J une 25, 2008, near l y tw o year s af t er R a w so n ’s d e p o sitio n h a d b e e n tak e n . W h ile th e trial ju d g e a c ted w ith in h is d isc re tio n in al l ow i ng the mot i on t o be hear d, one has t o w onderw hy H ol m es w ai t ed unt i l tr i al t o obj ect to e x p e rt te s tim o n y o f w h ic h h e h a d k n o w n th e b a s e s fo r m o re th a n tw o y e a rs . See H yundai Mo to r A m e ric a v. A

p p lew h ite , So. 3d , 2011 W L 448032, *5 ( M i s s . 2011) ( “[ T ] he tr i al

### 33

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 hetheran expert ’ s t es t i m ony is suffi cien tl y reli ab le t o b e h ea rd b y a jury
. . . . ”). ¶70. B eca us e R aw s on i s a n e ducat ed and exp eri enced acci den treconst ruct i on i st w ho pos s es s ed pec ul i arknow l edge w i thi n hi s f i el d notl i kel y t o be pos s es s ed by a l ayman, and hi s opi ni ons w er e notm er el y s ubj ect i ve bel i ef oruns uppor t ed s pecul at i on butw er e bas ed on
m ethods and procedu re s of s ci ence , the tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng R a w s o n ’s d e p o s itio n in its e n tir e ty . Ho o ten v. S ta te , 4 9 2 S o . 2 d at 9 4 8 ; McL em ore , 863 So. 2 d a t 3 6 . A c c o rd in g ly , I w o u ld a ffirm th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’s re v e rsa l a n d r e m a n d o f th is is s u e fo r a n e w tr ia l w ith th e in c lu s io n o f a ll o f R a w s o n ’s e x p e rt te s tim o n y . DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , AND RA NDOL P H, J . , J OI N T HI S OP NI ON.