Opinion ID: 1096699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of O'Neil Mendoza.

Text: ¶ 20. The standard of review for the admission or exclusion of testimony is abuse of discretion. Whitten, 799 So.2d at 13. The admission of expert testimony is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Unless we conclude that the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion, that decision will stand. Roberts v. Grafe Auto Co., 701 So.2d 1093, 1098 (Miss.1997). ¶ 21. Crane next complains that the trial court erred by excluding specific testimony of O'Neil Mendoza, a project manager for the Paul Romano. This exclusion, Crane asserts, severely prejudiced Crane. Kitzinger called Mendoza to testify concerning pay scales for Noble Drilling ET employees, conversion costs for the Paul Romano and Noble's general experience with elevators. ¶ 22. On cross-examination, Mendoza testified that Noble chose to have a non-ABS class elevator. Crane wanted Mendoza to testify to certain facts on cross-examination. Specifically, Crane attempted to question Mendoza concerning whether Noble intended to have the elevators certified under ABS rules; how Noble intended to service the hoistway in the absence of a ladder; and whether the ABS class designation applied to the elevator. After listening to testimony provided to the jury and proffered testimony, the trial court sustained Kitzinger objection. The judge determined that Mendoza was not an expert, the questions posed were not fact questions, and he was not designated as an expert. During the proffer, the trial judge asked Mendoza a number of questions to determine the extent of his knowledge. The questions were, in part, as follows: By the Court: Mr. Mendoza, I think you said earlier that this was the first elevator system installed on a Noble rig? By the Witness: That I know of. That is correct. By the Court: Have you worked on other rigs with elevators? By the Witness: No, I have not. By the Court: Okay. Are you familiar with ABS standards for shipboard elevators? By Mr. Castigliola: Specifically the ABS Guide to Shipboard Elevators. By the Court: Are you familiar with the ABS Guide for Shipboard Elevators? By the Witness: I know the guide exists, and I am not familiar with the details of the rules. I have read them in the past during a deposition last summer, and that's the first and only time that I have read the rules. By the Court: You read them in connectionthe first time you ever read those rules was in connection with this litigation? By the Witness: That is correct. And the reason for that is I have never been on a rig that had an elevator. I had no knowledge. By the Court: I can understand that, and I can see why you wouldn't bother with something you are not associated with. You have never had toin your work history experience have you ever certified elevators as in compliance or not in compliance with ABS Guide to Shipboard Elevators? By the Witness: No, I have not. By the Court: Have you ever had any involvement with such a process, or procedure or protocols involved in that at all? By the Witness: No, I have not. By the Court: I had another one, and I can'tWith respect to your response that I heard from an earlier deposition that you read just a few minutes ago, am I to understand that when you observed this particular hoistway, this particular elevator hoistway, you assumed based upon your other experience in dealing with thewhat did you call them? By the Witness: The elevator shaft. By the Court: The elevator shaft. You never had to deal with an elevator shaft? By the Witness: No, I have not, Your Honor. By the Court: But you have dealt with structural supports, the big tubes that the rig sits on. Right? By the Witness: Yes I have. By the Court: That supports the main platform? By the Witness: Yes, I have. By the Court: And your experience in servicing those structures had been to hook a line on to somebody and lower them down maybe? By the Witness: That's correct. By the Court: And you just assumed without any reference to any guidelines, safety features or anything else, that that's how y'all would service this hoistway? By the Witness: That's correct.     By the Court: Do you know whether the ABS Guide applies to an elevator, to this elevator? By the Witness: I know the ABS Guide does not apply to this elevator because the elevator was not a classed system on the rig. By the Court: And what's the basis for that opinion that you have? By the Witness: The basis for that opinion is based on what I saw go on in the certification process of the elevator. The ABS surveyor on the rig, which we had one full time, did not certify or issue any class paperwork on the elevator. By the Court: So, based on your observation of that process that's your conclusion? By the Witness: That is my conclusion. By the Court: I don't see that either. I don't see him to be an expert. I don't see these to be fact questions to the extent that you are going to inquire into them based upon your earlier questions. I don't see a designation as an expert. I will sustain the objection. (emphasis added). The trial court, also, instructed the jury to disregard any questions or responses of Mendoza with respect to the application or non-application of the ABS Guidelines for Shipboard Elevators with respect to compliance or non-compliance of the elevator system here at issue. Mendoza was determined to not be an expert nor designated as an expert and the questions were not fact questions. Crane's argument concerning personal knowledge is without merit. Based on the trial judge's examination of the witness, we cannot say that the judge abused his discretion by excluding the testimony of Mendoza. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.