Court Opinion

ID: 9762681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:28:54.639161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:36.658387
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee asserts that we are in error in stating that the opinion of officer West as to the speed of the vehicles was based solely on their damaged condition after the *178collision, and refers to his testimony that he based his opinion on his experience, training and observations made at the scene of the wreck.
Of course, testimony qualifying an expert to express an opinion is not substantive evidence, and has no relevancy to the issues being tried.
All observations made by officer West at the scene are subject to the same infirmities as those discussed in our original opinion relating to use of the extent of damage to the vehicles as a basis for forming an opinion as to their speed.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.