Opinion ID: 865971
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Skid Marks

Text: ¶51. Under Daubert, all of Rawson’s relevant conclusions, however, must have been sufficiently reliable. We find that Rawson’s ultimate conclusion regarding causation and avoidance was not sufficiently reliable. Based on the lack of skid marks, Rawson concluded that Denham had not negligently caused an immediate hazard when she had turned in front 23 of Holmes. Rawson reasoned that if Denham had caused an immediate hazard, then Holmes would have applied his brakes and left skid marks or swerve marks. And since no skid marks existed, according to Rawson, Denham could not have been negligent. ¶52. But other than speaking generally about creating immediate hazards and pointing to the lack of skid marks, Rawson’s deposition testimony never clearly explained under the limited physical evidence why skid marks were required for a finding that Holmes had attempted to avoid the accident: [Defense Attorney]: Now, we can agree that in the general course of traffic, disregarding the events of this accident, in the general course of traffic, vehicles not turning left and in clear sight, they would have the right-of-way to vehicles turning left on the eastbound lane? [Rawson]: Unless they created an immediate hazard? .... [Defense Attorney]: Okay. So in this case, Ms. Denham created an immediate hazard? [Rawson]: No, she didn’t. [Defense Attorney]: And so in this case, if she didn’t create an immediate hazard, then how does Mr. Holmes not have the right-of-way? [Rawson]: He didn’t attempt to avoid the accident. [Defense Attorney]: Okay. And if I’m clear – I’m not clear. Can you state that again? [Rawson]: Had she created an immediate hazard, she would have caused him to respond by locking his brakes or swerving left or right to take immediate evasive action. She did not. She made her turn in sufficient time for him to have slowed by normal brake and still avoid the accident. [Defense Attorney]: Okay. And how does that situation – how does that eliminate his right-of-way? [Rawson]: Well, the law says if someone is turning and they don’t create an immediate hazard, they have the right-of-way. .... [Defense Attorney]: And is that the basis of your opinion that Ms. Denham held no negligence, is the fact that the rules of the road state that when a vehicle is turning left and turns – I’m sorry. I just – if you can state that for me again so I’m clear. 24 [Rawson]: Okay. If the vehicle that makes a left turn across traffic does not create an immediate hazard, the oncoming traffic has to yield to him or her. [Defense Attorney]: So if you make a left turn across oncoming traffic, the oncoming traffic then has the duty to yield to you? [Rawson]: Yes, sir. [Defense Attorney]: Which, I guess, would be the basis for your opinion that he should have avoided the accident? [Rawson]: Yes, sir. (Emphasis added.) Based simply on the absence of skid marks, Rawson concluded that Denham had not been negligent and that Denham had the right of way. Rawson also concluded that Holmes had not attempted to avoid the accident.9 ¶53. Even though “[v]igorous 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[,]” this Court cannot say that the trial judge acted arbitrarily by finding that Rawson’s ultimate conclusion regarding causation and avoidance did not satisfy Daubert’s reliability standard. Hubbard, 41 So. 3d at 675 (quoting McLemore, 863 So. 2d at 36 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596)). “[N]othing in . . . Daubert . . . requires a . . . court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co., 990 So. 2d 143, 149 (Miss. 2008). 9 On the other hand, Holmes testified that, once Denham had pulled in front of him, he slowed his truck to a speed of thirty miles per hour in an effort to avoid the accident. 25 ¶54. While this Court has allowed, when appropriate, an accident reconstructionist to opine as to ultimate conclusions regarding causation, Rawson’s ultimate conclusion as articulated in his deposition testimony, based on the lack of skid marks, contained an obvious “analytical gap.” Therefore, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in excluding this testimony. Simply stated, Rawson failed to connect the dots between the skid marks and the existing physical evidence; thus, as found by the trial judge, his conclusion regarding causation was unreliable. ¶55. Moreover, Rawson’s conclusion regarding whether Denham had created an immediate hazard was not based on specialized, technical, or scientific knowledge. See M.R.E. 702 (requiring “scientific, technical, [or] specialized knowledge”). As previously mentioned, Rawson opined that, because no skid marks were present in the black-and-white photographs, Holmes did not attempt to avoid the accident, although he had a duty to do so. However, Holmes testified that he did brake to avoid the accident, probably slowed to thirty miles per hour, and sought to circumvent Denham’s car in the gravel lot off the highway where the collision occurred. Durham, Holmes’s passenger, stated that Denham’s vehicle had pulled in front of Holmes’s truck at the last second. On the other hand, Denham and Caldwell testified that they never saw Holmes’s truck approaching, and that he must have been driving “crazy fast.” ¶56. Without clearly tying the physical evidence to the lack of skid marks, Rawson’s speculation “on the implication of the lack of skid marks would not have been superior to a conclusion a jury could [have drawn] for themselves” and, therefore, was not necessary. See 26 Garnett v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 186 P.3d 935, 946 (Okla. 2008); Palmer, 564 So. 2d at 1355 (Miss. 1990) (“Expert testimony is required unless the matter in issue is within the common knowledge of laymen.”); Scott v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d 1052, 1055 (4th Cir. 1986) (“[E]xpert testimony is unnecessary . . . when ordinary experience would render the jury competent to decide the issue.”). ¶57. “A trial judge’s determination as to whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is given the widest possible discretion . . . .” Worthy, 37 So. 3d at 614 (quoting Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Pounders, 970 So. 2d 141, 146 (Miss. 2007)). Viewing Rawson’s deposition testimony in its entirety, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by not allowing into evidence expert testimony that was clearly speculative and based on insufficient data. But the trial court did abuse its discretion by not permitting the jury to weigh the credibility of Rawson’s distance and timing estimates, which largely were based on facts in the record and would have aided the jury.