1096	

[241 

S AND S CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL V . A. J. STACKS ET AL 

5-4116	 411 8 W. 2d 508


Opinion delivered February 20, 1967 

EVIDENCE—OPINION EVIDENCE—GROUNDS FOR ADMISSION.—Admis sion 

of investigating officer's opinion testimony as to the point of 

impact of vehicles involved in collision held error. 

Appeal from Conway Circuit Court, Russell C. Roberts, Judge; reversed and remanded. 

S. Hubert 11Ittues Jr. for appellant. 

Felver A. Rowell Jr. for appellee. 

CbNLEY BYRD, Justice. Appellants, S and S Construction Company and Marvin Sherman, bring this appeal-from a tort judgmentin_ favor of _the owner,. driver 

and passengers of an automobile which was involved 

with appellants' 2010 John Deere tractor, equipped with 

a front end loader and back hoe attachment and being 

used in construction of a sewer near Highway 64 in the 

city of Plumerville, Conway County, Arkansas. Appellants rely upon two points only for reversal: 

I. The trial court erred in admitting the opinion 

testimony of the investigating officer as to the point 

of impact. 

II. The verdicts for personal injuries of appellees 

in this case were grossly excessive. 

The facts show that appellees, Mr. A. J. Stacks et al, 

were traveling west on Highway 64 in the city of Plumerville when they struck the front end loader scoop with 

the right side of their vehicle, and then struck a cotton 

trailer proceeding in the opposite direction. The driver 

and two passengers were in appellees' vehicle, and the 

operator and two witnesses for appellants were present 

at the time of the occurrence, all of whom testified as to 

the point of impact. Notwithstanding, appellee's called
ARK.]	S AND S CONSTR. CO. V. STACKS	1097

the officer who arrived at the scene of the accident 

some twenty or thirty minutes later and asked him if he 

were able to determine the point of impact between the 

2010 John Deere pay loader and the Stacks automobile. 

The state trooper testified that from the debris and the 

tire marks he was so able to determine the point of 

impact. Over the objection of appellants the trooper was 

permitted to testify as follows : 

"The Stacks ear was traveling west—Of course, 

when I arrived at the scene, as I said, the payloader 

was sitting off the pavement on the shoulder, but had 

been in this position, digging a ditch putting in a 

sewer system. And on the front of the payloader is 

a ditch digger ; and on the back of this loader is a 

scoop where they pick up the dirt and load it on the 

truck. It wag sitting in this position digging this 

ditch, with, the scoop overhanging out into the west 

hound lane of traffic. The vehicle traveling west hit 

the back end of the scoop of the payloader." (Emphasis added.) 

We had a similar problem before us in Reed, v. Humphreys, 237 Ark. 315, 373 S. W 2d 580 (1963). We there 

said:

" The collision here in question was uncomplicated 

and there were photographs of the automobile, 

truck, and the scene of the accident, showing gouges 

and marks on and off the road, as well as testimony 

of witnesses who vividly described the conditions 

prevailing and the scene. The police officer's testimony conflicts in part with testimony of some of 

appellee's witnesses who arrived at the scene before 

the officer ; however, virtually the only fact testified 

to by the officer not already clearly coveTed 

testimony of witnesses for both appelle and appellants was the location of debris on the highway. 

which the officer testified about, in detail and at 

length. As was stated in the Waters case, supra, 

'The facts to be determined were not complicated.
1098 [24-1- 

This was a relatively simple collision. Certainly 

there was no evidence to indicate that it was beyond 

the jury's ability to understand the facts and draw 

it's own conclusions. The state of the record being 

thus, we find that the trial court erred in allowing 

appellee to resort to such expert opinion.' 

"It follows, therefore, in the present case, that the 

trial court committed no error in excluding the police 

officer 's testimony. In so holding, we take,. this occasion to restate the rule so succinctly stated in Cahil 

v. Bradford, 172 Ark. 69, 287 S. W. 595, 'Opinion 

evidence is not admissible when the fact is susceptible of being adequately exhibited to the jury in the 

ordinary way.' 

Therefore, we hold that the admission of the officer's 

opinion testimony as -to the point of impact was error. 

- While the damages awarded appellees are a bit liberal, we need not review them here since the issue may 

not arise on a new trial. 

Reversed and rAnanded.