Opinion ID: 852197
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Plaintiffs Seatbelt Expert

Text: With respect to the plaintiffs seatbelt expert, Steven Meyer, Ford adopts TRWs argument that the trial court erroneously permitted Meyer to provide speculative testimony that was not sufficiently related to the specific facts of this case. The TRW claim on appeal is that the trial court erroneously failed to exclude the entirety of Meyer's testimony because it failed to meet the requirements of Indiana Evidence Rule 702. A trial court's determination regarding the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702 is a matter within its broad discretion and will be reversed only for abuse of that discretion. Carter v. State, 766 N.E.2d 377, 380 (Ind.2002); Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453, 459 (Ind.2001). The trial court's decision is presumed correct, and the party challenging the decision has the burden of persuading us that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915, 923 (Ind.2005). It is only those rulings on admissibility made during trial, not those made on motions in limine, that may be raised on appeal. McCarthy v. State, 749 N.E.2d 528, 537 (Ind.2001). And trial objections to admissibility, if not made contemporaneously with the admission of the challenged evidence, do not preserve for appellate review any resulting claim of error in the ruling on such untimely objections. Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 797 (Ind.2008); White v. State, 687 N.E.2d 178, 179 (Ind. 1997). Before trial, TRW filed a motion in limine and supporting brief seeking to limit or exclude Meyer's testimony. The trial court's ruling on this motion is not included in the record presented on appeal, but at trial TRWs counsel described what this court has already ruled, as denying our motion to exclude his testimony in the entirety. Tr. at 549. To address this issue, we consider the trial court's rulings on contemporaneous objections during trial. During Meyer's testimony at trial, TRW requested the exclusion of evidence regarding two tests or experiments that Meyer had apparently conducted and about which his testimony was anticipated. TRW sought to exclude such evidence, alleging that the experimental conditions were not substantially similar to the facts of this case. Id. at 562. TRWs trial objection requested only the exclusion of the tests, not the general exclusion or striking of all of Meyer's testimony. Id. at 549, 562-63. After considerable argument of counsel regarding Evidence Rule 702 and case law interpreting it, the trial court recessed for further research. Upon returning, the trial court announced that with respect to the testimony of Mr. Meyer and the Motion in Limine, Meyer would be permitted to testify but that the two tests are excluded. Id. at 563-64. At a later point in Meyer's direct examination, he was asked in what part of the rollover sequence would this belt have come unlocked so that the spoolout could occur? Id. at 1395-96. Meyer answered that [i]t can occur, and it would have occurred, during the roll, most probably when there were vertically directed accelerations similar to those wheels down, slam down. Id. at 1396. In response to the plaintiffs counsel's request to explain by showing what he meant using that car next to you, Meyer did so, with accompanying narrative description. Tr. at 1396. TRW objected and moved to strike, asserting speculation. Id. The plaintiffs counsel then responded that his questioning was laying the foundation, and the trial court stated it would see what the next question is. Id. at 1397. The witness was then asked, To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, sir, can you say from the marks, the forensic marks on this belt, that that definitely happened at one of those points in this rollover? Id. Meyer answered that [t]here is no doubt that it occurred, but explained that he couldn't identify the exact point of occurrence to a specific millisecond, and that it occurred generally when the wheels were down where there is going to be an impact that would have a vertically biased acceleration. Id. at 1397-98. When the plaintiffs counsel further asked the witness [w]ithout speculating, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, whether each of these rolls have . . . [v]ertically biased impacts, Ford's counsel objected, asserting He's leading. Id. at 1398. The trial court permitted the witness to answer. These objections were clearly directed only at a narrow, specific evidentiary issue and did not seek to strike all of Meyer's testimony. At the conclusion of all the evidence in the case, TRW orally moved to strike Meyer's testimony regarding alternate designs, [the] alleged defect of the seatbelt assembly, and claim defect. Tr. at 2685, 2690. As to the latter, TRW asked that the jury be instructed to disregard it. Id. at 2690. After hearing argument of counsel, the trial court denied these motions. Id. at 2733. We decline to give separate appellate consideration to the denial of these motions because they were not made at the time of the witness's testimony and because these post-trial motions did not seek to strike the entirety of Meyer's testimony, the issue presented on appeal. TRW (and Ford by incorporation) claims on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the entirety of Meyer's testimony, but we do not find such issue to have been raised by any contemporaneous motion or request during trial. To the extent that the trial court referenced the motion in limine during Meyer's testimony and stated that he would be permitted to testify but not as to the two challenged tests, we are not persuaded that such ruling was an abuse of the trial court's broad discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Evidence Rule 702. The trial court gave extensive and thoughtful consideration to TRWs expressed objections and in fact prohibited Meyer from presenting evidence about the two tests to which TRW objected. We decline to find error on this issue.