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

Heading: Sergeant James Estabrook

Text: [¶ 36] Tolliver called Sergeant Estabrook as an expert witness at trial. As part of Estabrook's training after joining the sheriff's department, he received instruction in basic accident investigation techniques, and had investigated hundreds of accidents in the course of his career. He acknowledged, however, that he was not an accident reconstructionist and that he believed an accident reconstructionist was necessary to investigate the cause of the accident involving Tolliver. [7] [¶ 37] Estabrook testified that he had been on patrol on Route 302 in the days prior to the accident, and had observed vehicles traveling at high rates of speed in what he knew to be the breakdown lane. His testimony that, based on his observations, he believed that the lack of an edge line could have been a contributing factor in the accident was objected to by MDOT and ordered stricken by the court. MDOT did not also ask for a curative instruction or move for a mistrial at that time. [¶ 38] MDOT asserts that Estabrook was not qualified to address causation. Nonetheless, he was allowed [to] opine that the lack of a side edgeline was a possible contributing factor in the accident. However, our examination of Estabrook's testimony establishes that Estabrook was not, in fact, permitted to testify that the lack of an edge line was a contributing factor to the accident. Indeed, the court sustained MDOT's objection and ordered the testimony stricken. [8] Accordingly, we find no error with regard to Estabrook's testimony.