Opinion ID: 1209844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kadlec's Test Results

Text: Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting Kadlec's test results, because the elements of Kadlec's tests were not substantially similar to the elements existing at the time of the accident. We agree. Previously, in Loevsky v. Carter, 70 Haw. 419, 426-27, 773 P.2d 1120, 1125 (1989), this court held that: [w]hen a test or experiment is an attempt to reenact the original happening, the essential elements of the experiment must be substantially similar to those existing at the time of the accident. Carr v. Suzuki Motor Co., 280 Ark. 1, 3, 655 S.W.2d 364, 365 (1983). And [a]lthough the decision whether to admit evidence of experiments rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge, it is well settled that reconstruction experiments are incompetent unless the essential elements of the experiment are shown to be substantially similar to those existing at the time of the accident. Hubbard v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 83 Ill.App.3d 272, 280, 38 Ill.Dec. 887, 894, 404 N.E.2d 311, 318 (1980) (citations omitted). The appeal in Loevsky arose out of an accident involving a motorcycle driven by the defendant Laurie Carter. Carter was negotiating a curve when she hit a guardrail and struck the plaintiff. Carter claimed that she lost control when she rode over gravel. Id. 70 Haw. at 421-422, 773 P.2d at 1122-23. During the defendant County of Hawai'i's (County) case-in-chief, it called Dr. Bolster, who was qualified as an expert in the area of accident reconstruction. Id. at 425, 773 P.2d at 1124. Through Bolster's testimony, the County was able to admit a videotape into evidence, which contained four crucial tests. Id. It was undisputed that the motorcycle tests neither duplicated the exact conditions nor substantially resembled the actual accident. Id. at 427, 773 P.2d at 1125. The County argued that the tape was admitted to demonstrate the principle that one could negotiate the curve in question at a speed of approximately 40 m.p.h., even if there was an overabundance of gravel, and not for reenactment purposes. Id. at 427-28, 773 P.2d at 1125. This court disagreed and concluded that the videotape amounted to a veiled attempt to successfully re-create the motorcycle ride under controlled conditions favorable to County[,] which left the jury with the lasting visual impression that the presence of gravel should not have been a contributing factor. Id. at 428-29, 773 P.2d at 1126 (citation omitted). This flawed reasoning ... was premised in large part on the distinct factual dissimilarities between the accident and the reenactment. Id. at 429, 773 P.2d at 1126. Thus, this court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the tape and allowing the jury to view its contents. Id. In the instant case, Kadlec's tests were likewise an attempt to re-create the parasail ride under conditions favorable to Defendants. Kadlec conducted reconstruction tests to determine whether it was possible for Mami to fall out of the parasail chair. It is undisputed that he did not test the accident chair, but instead tested a chair that allowed the passenger to sit below its frame. Kadlec's chair was also heavier and larger than the accident chair. Not only did Kadlec test a structurally different chair; he also failed to test the effects of a broken line. Kadlec reasoned that the possibility of a broken line would not change his opinion because [t]here's absolutely no evidence that there was a failure of any equipment. The Coast Guard report made an inspection and official finding. Furthermore, the witness testimony was such that it indicates there was no equipment failure in my opinion. [8] These conditions allowed Kadlec to successfully re-create the parasail ride under controlled conditions favorable to Defendants and left the jury with the lasting visual impression that a passenger could not have fallen out of the chair. Moreover, Kadlec's test results were incompetent under the Loevsky test because the essential elements of the test were not substantially similar to those existing at the time of the accident. Thus, we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting Kadlec's test results.