Opinion ID: 900903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Dr Abrams' Expert Qualifications

Text: [¶ 43.] SDCL 19-15-2 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. The test was originally set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and adopted by South Dakota in State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482, 484 (S.D.1994): If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. (quoting Federal Rule of Evidence 702). See also SDCL 19-15-2. According to this test, the trial judge must determine `that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.' In re Dokken, 2000 SD 9, ¶ 40, 604 N.W.2d 487, 498 (2000) (quoting State v. Moeller, 1996 SD 60, ¶ 52, 548 N.W.2d 465, 479). The requirements of the test are satisfied if the expert testimony is relevant and has `a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.' Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 148, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786). [¶ 44.] Dr. Abrams is a qualified expert. He has an undergraduate degree from Ohio State University with a background in physics, physiology and mathematics. He graduated from the School of Optometry at Ohio State University and has practiced as an optometrist for approximately forty years. [¶ 45.] Abrams has devoted time to research in the area of vehicular visibility and traffic safety. He has written several articles and has contributed to academic textbooks. More specifically, Abrams has authored chapters entitled Nighttime Vision and Railroad Crossings, and Forensic Aspects of Vision and Highway Safety. The list of his qualifications is extensive. Clearly Abrams is an expert qualified to testify. [¶ 46.] The trial court found Abrams' testimony reliable because his opinions are accepted in the scientific community. Further, the court found that Abrams' testimony was relevant and helpful to the jury as to the issue of contributory negligence and the issue of visibility. Abrams concluded that it would have been difficult for Julie Boomsma to see the train and even more difficult to see the alleged flagman. Abrams visited the scene, took photographs and reviewed reports pertaining to the Boomsma accident. [¶ 47.] Therefore, Abrams' education and experience accompanied by his review of the accident satisfies the Daubert test. The trial court did not abuse its discretion and properly admitted Abram's testimony.