Opinion ID: 2357315
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Laurent Lavigne

Text: [¶ 30] Lavigne was designated as an expert witness by Tolliver, and testified that he was currently working as a road construction consultant. Lavigne testified that he had previously worked for a paving company that performed road construction in Maine, including paving and striping activities. He graduated from college around 1965 with a degree in civil engineering with a major in transportation. Since then, he has worked on numerous highway construction projects, many of which involved striping and paving. Lavigne testified that while he was working in Maine, his company was the MDOT subcontractor responsible for striping on some state road projects, and that when his company was responsible for doing the striping on a road, MDOT expected that it be done within two or three days, a week at the most. He also stated that when MDOT itself was doing the striping on the road, as opposed to using a subcontractor, it usually completed the striping within two days to a week after paving on a job had been completed. Lavigne testified that the reason why it was important to get the striping done within this timeframe was primarily the safety of drivers and pedestrians. [¶ 31] After Lavigne had testified to his experience working on highway construction projects in general, and specifically as an MDOT subcontractor, Tolliver asked Lavigne if, based upon [his] training, education, experience and [his] examination of the site conditions at the scene of the accident, he had an opinion as to whether or not the failure of [MDOT] to stripe the fog line or sideline prior to the accident on June 20th was a substantial contributing factor in causing the accident. MDOT's objection to the question was overruled, and Lavigne stated that he believed the lack of an edge line would be confusing to drivers and pedestrians in general. He then stated, over MDOT's objection, that he believed the lack of an edge line was a substantial contributor to the accident. [¶ 32] On cross-examination, Lavigne admitted that he had visited the accident site only once and had only basic knowledge of the area in which the accident occurred. He also stated that he did not take Lucas's inebriation or Knight's account of the accident into consideration when forming his opinion. On redirect, Lavigne testified that it would be more important that there be a line delineating the breakdown lane for a person who had been drinking than for someone else. MDOT's objection to this testimony was overruled. [¶ 33] MDOT contends that Lavigne was not qualified to testify that the lack of an edge line was a substantial contributing factor to the accident in this case. We agree. [¶ 34] Lavigne's experience, training, and education qualified him as a road construction expert with knowledge of MDOT's standards and operating procedures. He was, therefore, qualified to testify as to MDOT's usual timeframe for striping a road, based on his experience with this department. He was also qualified to testify, based on his education and experience, that edge lines are important on roadways for the safety of the public and pedestrians. This is the kind of knowledge a road construction expert would generally possess. [¶ 35] It is clear, however, that Lavigne lacked the foundation necessary to offer an opinion as to the cause of this particular accident. He had limited knowledge about the accident scene and the condition of the individuals involved in the accident. He was not an accident reconstructionist whose training and experience would allow him to make scientifically reasonable and supportable conclusions about causation based on a careful examination of the accident scene. Lavigne's training and experience may have permitted him to opine that the lack of an edge line created an unsafe condition that was a possible cause of the accident, but not that it was a proximate cause of the accident. The mere possibility of causation is not enough to establish proximate cause, or, in Lavigne's words, substantial contribut[ion]. See Merriam v. Wanger, 2000 ME 159, ¶ 8, 757 A.2d 778, 780-81. Lavigne's opinion that the lack of an edge line substantially contributed to the accident was speculation and did not assist the jury; rather, it infringed on the function and role of the jury. For these reasons, the court erred in admitting Lavigne's testimony regarding causation.