Court Opinion

ID: 9552706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:15:26.222402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:41.313745
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(dissenting)—I am unable to join in the majority decision because I believe the testimony of Andrew Tooke was properly admitted under the rules. ER 702 provides:
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.
Specialized knowledge is of help in this case because the key witness, the driver of the bus, died before trial, leaving an improbable report of the accident filed with the company. In that report he stated:
I was N.B. on 4th Ave at Marion St with a green light. Just entering the intersection a blue Pinto started to make a right turn from the lane to my left I was in the curb lane. He came to a stop and changed his mind and cont. N. on 4th Ave. I had to make a very sudden stop missing the Pinto by about an inch.
How the Pinto, while overtaking the bus, could cut in front and stop, leaving the vehicles in the positions as shown on the diagram, is an important factual question. Specialized knowledge would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence and determine what occurred. The accident reconstructionist, Tooke, presented impressive *579credentials of his qualifications as an expert in analyzing how accidents happen. It was clearly within the discretion of the trial court to permit him to testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
[[Image here]]
ER 703 provides:
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
The basic data Tooke used in support of his opinions were the bus driver's report, interviews with three of the six witnesses in the bus, the statements of all of them, the Fire Department Medic I's record and an examination of the unchanged Fourth and Marion intersection. The information was "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the *580subject". ER 703. Thus, the expert's testimony was admissible even though his conclusions may differ from those the majority draws from the same facts. That is of no moment, as the important consideration is that Tooke had ample and reliable information from which to reconstruct the event. He was cross-examined vigorously, skillfully, and with great care. The admission of his opinions was not error.
I would affirm.
Review denied by Supreme Court July 8, 1986.