Opinion ID: 1375110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of the Expert Affidavit

Text: The Appellant next asserts that the circuit court improperly disregarded the affidavit of Appellant's expert, Don Jox. Mr. Jox's affidavit consists of a single page. In the affidavit, he briefly lists some of the facts in the case and then conclusorily states as follows: 4. Based upon the foregoing, I give the following opinion: A) That Defendants ought to have known that Keno, a six month old quarter horse, was dangerously inclined and likely would inflict injury upon Delvious Jividen given the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. B) That Defendants failed to exercise the reasonable care required to prevent Keno, the six month old quarter horse, from causing injuries to others. While the affidavit appears to be inadmissible on several grounds, we are most concerned by its failure to explain why, given the facts, that the Appellees either (1) should have known of Keno's propensities, or (2) failed to exercise ordinary care. For instance, one is left to speculate why a six-month old quarterhorse with an injured knee and ear is more vicious or dangerous than any other horse. Given the perfunctory nature of the affidavit and the absence of any reasoned basis for Mr. Jox's opinion, we cannot conclude that the circuit court improperly disregarded it. See M & M Medical Supplies & Serv., Inc. v. Pleasant Valley Hosp., Inc., 981 F.2d 160, 165 (4th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2962, 125 L.Ed.2d 662 (1993) (An expert's affidavit that is wholly conclusory and devoid of reasoning does not comply with Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e).); see also Williams, 194 W.Va. at 60, 459 S.E.2d at 337 n. 10 (We need not credit purely conclusory allegations, indulge in speculation, or draw improbable inferences.); 28 Thomas J. Goger et al., Federal Procedure Pleadings and Motions § 62:598 (Lawyers ed. 1984); 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2738 at 486, 489 (2d ed. 1983) (Thus, ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law ... cannot be utilized on a summary judgment motion.) (footnotes omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that this assignment of error is meritless.