Opinion ID: 194678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Hypothetical Question

Text: Maritime asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Jaun Llompart, to answer a hypothetical question that improperly assumed facts not in evidence. Specifically, plaintiff's counsel asked Dr. Llompart to assume, in part, that a hypothetical seaman was injured after pulling a hose and butterworth out of 12 tank openings. Maritime asserts that this assumption was contrary to the evidence introduced at trial, which revealed that Toucet was injured after only 4 tank openings were cleaned. While a hypothetical should include only those facts supported by the evidence, Iconco v. Jensen Constr. Co., 622 F.2d 1291, 1301 (8th Cir. 1980), the record here indicates that sufficient facts existed to support the challenged hypothetical. Each numbered tank had twelve openings, six on the port side and six on the starboard side. (Appellant's App. at 48a; 154a-56a; 162a.) During direct examination, Toucet testified that he and the rest of the team lowered a total of six hoses into the first six openings of tank number one, three on each side. Id. at 51a; 162a. After completing the first six openings, the team proceeded to clean the remaining six openings of tank 13 number one in the same manner. Toucet testified that after completing the butterworthing of tank number one he and the team proceeded to the first opening of tank number two. Toucet felt his back crack while working on tank number two. On this record, we find that the factual assumptions underlying the plaintiff's hypothetical were fully supported by the evidence. Moreover, Federal Rules of Evidence 703 and 705 place the full burden of exploration of the facts and assumptions underlying the testimony of an expert witness squarely on the shoulders of opposing counsel's cross-examination. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784, 793 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918 (1981). During its cross-examination of Dr. Llompart, Maritime elected not to explore any perceived discrepancies or inconsistencies relating to the hypothetical, nor did Maritime ever explicitly call the attention of court or counsel to the discrepancy it now asserts. In short, Maritime's assertion of error is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling admitting Dr. Llompart's answer to the hypothetical question. 14