Opinion ID: 1898492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: did the lower court err in excluding certain testimony of dr. john baerwald?

Text: As previously discussed, ICGRR filed and was granted a motion in limine prior to trial. One portion of the order granting this motion prohibited any opinion testimony that the Scarborough Street crossing was unusually hazardous or extra-hazardous. At trial, Mitcham put on the stand Dr. John E. Baerwald of Champaign, Illinois, an expert in the field of traffic control. Baerwald, using a series of complicated calculations, based on the use of sight triangles, testified that a motorist driving at the posted speed limit on Scarborough Street should have a clear view down the tracks, at a distance of two hundred fifty (250) feet from the rail nearest the driver, in order to execute a safe stop. The lower court allowed Dr. Baerwald to testify as to safe stopping distances, but in accordance with the motion in limine it prohibited any opinion testimony as to the extra-hazardous or unusually dangerous nature of the crossing. It is this prohibition that the appellant now assigns as error. In speaking to the question of opinion testimony as it concerns the ultra-hazardous condition of a railroad crossing this Court has stated that: As noted above, the plaintiff sought introduction of the testimony under consideration to establish the dangerousness of the overpass, which in effect was opinion-type testimony. To this extent, such opinion testimony was an attempted invasion of the jury's province. Such evidence is error under Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Williams. Russell v. Mississippi Central Railroad, 239 Miss. 741, 750, 125 So.2d 283, 286 (1960); Columbus and G.R. Co. v. Coleman, 172 Miss. 514, 160 So. 277 (1935). Thus we find that the lower court correctly refused to allow the plaintiff to establish dangerousness of the overpass by testimony which amounted to opinion testimony as an invasion of the province of the jury. (emphasis added) Parmes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 440 So.2d 261, 267 (Miss. 1983). Mitcham argues that the decision of the lower court in excluding this testimony should be reversed on the basis of Hollingsworth v. Bovaird Supply Co., 465 So.2d 311 (Miss. 1985). In Hollingsworth this Court stated for the first time that an accident reconstruction expert should be allowed to give his testimony as to how an accident occurred. Id. at 314. This case did not direct itself to the question of opinion testimony as to the ultra-hazardous nature of a condition, as in the case presently at hand. Therefore, under Parmes, the argument of Mitcham must fail. This assignment of error has no merit.