Opinion ID: 738753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cross-Examination of Plaintiffs' Expert Witness

Text: 28 Plaintiffs argue that the district court should not have permitted defense counsel to question plaintiffs' witness Jim Rainey on closure speed and perception and reaction times because Rainey is an expert only on safety issues. On direct examination, Rainey testified that Romeri could not have been traveling more than 40 miles per hour when he entered the right lane of the highway. Rainey concluded that Romeri should not have entered the lane until he had fully used the acceleration lane and attained a higher speed. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Rainey about closure rates of vehicles approaching the merging vehicle. Plaintiffs objected to this questioning as being outside the scope of direct testimony. We agree with the district court that after Rainey had expressed his opinion that Romeri had failed to properly use the acceleration lane, cross-examination was proper regarding the distance Romeri needed to safely merge onto the interstate. The court finds no error in the district court's ruling.