Opinion ID: 1602226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in rejecting the affidavit of engineer Jimmy Halfacre.

Text: ¶ 8. [T]he admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.... Therefore, the decision of a trial judge will stand `unless we conclude that the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion.' Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 34 (Miss.2003) (citation omitted). ¶ 9. Mississippi law requires the trial court to ensure that proposed [expert] testimony satisfies Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Pounders, 970 So.2d 141, 146 (Miss.2007) (citing Donaldson v. Covington County, 846 So.2d 219, 226 (Miss.2003)). Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 provides: [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Miss. R. Evid. 702 (emphasis added). This Rule recognizes the gate keeping responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the expert testimony is relevant and reliable.  Miss. R. Evid. 702 cmt. (emphasis added). ¶ 10. By his own admission, Halfacre is not an accident reconstructionist. However, for purposes of admitting his affidavit, such terminology or certification is unnecessary. See Pounders, 970 So.2d at 146 (a witness need not be a specialist in any particular profession to testify as an expert.... The scope of the witness's knowledge and experience, and not any artificial classification, governs the question of admissibility.) (citations omitted); Sacks v. Necaise, 991 So.2d 615, 622 (Miss. Ct.App.2007). Halfacre possessed the professional qualifications to take the requisite measurements at the accident site and then input those figures into an accepted mathematical equation, in order to calculate Thomas's line of sight. [4] According to his resume, Halfacre received his Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from Mississippi State University in 1974 and has been a registered professional engineer [5] since March 1, 1980. Furthermore, he is an member of the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Mississippi Engineering Society, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. As a licensed, professional engineer[,] Halfacre examined photographs of the accident site, reviewed relevant deposition testimony, and then visited the accident site in January 2005. At the accident site, Halfacre studied the topography and obstructions at the railroad crossing, observed trains approaching and crossing the railroad crossing, and positioned his engineering instruments at the same location that Thomas's tractor-trailer was positioned prior to the accident. [6] Halfacre then conducted measurements and collected line-of-sight data using engineering instruments and devices. [7] Regarding the subsequent calculations, Halfacre's deposition testimony is instructive: Q.... In making your time distance calculations, what engineering principles or what body of learning did you rely upon as a professional engineer in doing that? A. Pretty elementary physics in terms of motions studies from-I would say that most engineers who have had two semesters of physics can calculate the speed and correlate that to a time distance travel. (Emphasis added). From those calculations, Halfacre found that: 58-feet, ... which is ... the 50-feet from the nose of the truck plus the 8-feet to the driver's eyeballs, looking this way measuring the distance down the track would have been 447-feet.[ [8] ] Now, 447-feet, knowing that there's 5,280-feet in a mile and knowing that we're dealing with a closing speed of 50 miles an hour, doing that calculation means that there is only about a 6.8 or somewhat less than seven seconds time from the point where the 447-foot mark would be until the center of the crossing. After providing his affidavit, but prior to his deposition, Halfacre verified his calculations using a recognized equation from Train Accident Reconstruction and FELA and Railroad Litigation by James R. Loumiet and William G. Jungbauer. According to Halfacre, applying that equation: reinforces the fact that 447 [feet] plus or minus what few percent of possible error that you could argue because of different seasons and height distance and whatever, if anything, reinforces the fact that there is not adequate field of vision there to move the distance that that vehicle would have moved to have cleared the tracks.[ [9] ] ¶ 11. Utilizing sound engineering principles and the laws of physics, obtained through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, see Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702, as a registered professional engineer, Halfacre collected relevant line-of-sight data using appropriate engineering instruments and devices, and subsequently input that data into a recognized line-of-sight equation. From those calculations, Halfacre opined that the obstructions prevented Kilhullen from seeing the approaching train until he was dangerously close to the railroad track. [10] In rejecting Halfacre's affidavit due to his lack of specialized knowledge, training or expertise in the field of accident reconstruction[,] this Court finds that the circuit court abused its discretion. Given his applied engineering expertise, classification as an accident reconstructionist was not necessary, see Pounders, 970 So.2d at 146; Sacks, 991 So.2d at 622, and this Court concludes that Halfacre's affidavit satisfied Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702.