Opinion ID: 865971
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timing & Distance Estimates

Text: ¶46. Rawson’s ultimate conclusion – that Holmes should have avoided the accident – assumed that Holmes’s estimated speed was correct and further assumed that Holmes had constantly maintained his estimated rate of speed until impact. 8 At trial, Holmes testified that he had told police that he estimated his speed to have been between forty and forty-five miles per hour. He also testified that he had slowed to thirty miles per hour when Denham’s car had turned into his lane. 21 ¶47. Rawson’s testimony hinges on precise timing – the difference between 3.12 seconds and 3.62 seconds. If these assumptions were incorrect, then Holmes would not have been 206 feet away from the plaintiff’s car when it began to turn. Consequently, his conclusions regarding accident avoidance and the fact that Denham did not create an immediate hazard most likely would have been altered. ¶48. Evidentiary weaknesses stemming from a lack of physical evidence in the plaintiffs’ case should not induce the introduction of unreliable expert testimony. See M.R.E. 702. Generally, however, when expert opinion is based on reliable methodology, the facts as applied in the methodology are a credibility determination for the jury. See Treasure Bay Corp. v. Ricard, 967 So. 2d 1235, 1240 (Miss. 2007). Here, Rawson relied on basic mathematics – an obviously reliable methodology – to create his timing and distance estimates. In reaching his conclusions, Rawson applied facts in the record, including Holmes’s estimated speed of forty-five miles per hour. ¶49. While Rawson’s timing and distance estimates arguably were shaky, the credibility of this portion of Rawson’s deposition was an issue for the trier of fact. See id. (“[E]xperts in many fields, including medicine, accident reconstruction and forensic pathology, frequently rely on histories provided by patients and witnesses.”); see also Hubbard, 41 So. 3d at 675 (quoting McLemore, 863 So. 2d at 36 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596)) (“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”). 22 ¶50. Moreover, although the trial judge expressed concern over whether Rawson had performed a true accident reconstruction, this Court finds that Rawson’s testimony regarding his timing and distance estimates, based on common mathematics, did constitute expert testimony in the field of accident reconstruction. Although jurors could have performed Rawson’s common calculations, Rawson collected data from the accident using his specialized knowledge. He measured sight distances, timed cars, and determined the location of the accident from the available evidence. He interpreted this evidence and, ultimately, based on this limited evidence, he reached conclusions about causation and avoidance. As applied mathematically and at the accident site, Rawson’s expert analysis and methods regarding timing and distance estimates, were beyond the average juror’s “common knowledge” and should have been presented to the jury. Palmer v. Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So. 2d 1346, 1355 (Miss. 1990); Smith v. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc., 991 So. 2d 1228, 1230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008); see also 9 Am. Jur. 3d Proof of Facts § 115, 4 (2010) (Trial court should admit expert testimony if relying on the “‘knowledge and application of principles of physics, engineering, and other sciences [is] beyond the ken of the average juror.’”).