Opinion ID: 1673907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of testimony of M.I. Starns

Text: For their next point on appeal, appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony from M.I. Starns, appellants' expert witness who was prepared to testify that the hard hat would not have diminished the severity of Rodgers's injuries. Starns claimed that he had done extensive hard-hat research over the past fifteen years for OSHA, ANSI, and industrial firms. He also reported testifying in other hard-hat lawsuits when expert testimony was needed to corroborate the lack or severity of injuries. In Starns's opinion, given the manner in which the pipe knocked appellant down, Rodgers would sill have sustained his injuries with or without a hard hat. In response, appellee claims that Starns is no expert. Starns never spoke with Rodgers, never investigated the job site, is not a licensed engineer or medical doctor, and does not hold a four-year degree from any institution, despite his past claims to the contrary. Moreover, the determination of an expert's qualifications is a matter within the trial court's discretion. First Commercial Trust Co. v. Rank, 323 Ark. 390, 915 S.W.2d 262 (1996). Appellants counter that this court has been liberal concerning expert's qualifications and ability to testify. See Ark. R.Evid. 702; Dildine v. Clark Equip. Co., 282 Ark. 130, 666 S.W.2d 692(194). In Dildine , we cautioned that too rigid a standard should be avoided, and if some reasonable basis exists from which it can be said the witness has knowledge of the subject, his evidence is admissible. Id. Adopting this reasoning, appellants suggest that the relative weakness or strength of Starns's testimony should be a matter of weight and credibility for the jury rather than admissibility. Under the instant facts, we disagree. In light of our standard of review, we decline to overturn the trial court's decision to disallow Starns's testimony. In any event, Starns's testimony was merely cumulative because Dr. Yates, a qualified expert, testified that the failure to wear a hard hat would not have made a difference in Rodgers's spinal injuries. Accordingly, we find no basis for finding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding M.I. Starns's testimony.