Curtis Brown v. Professional Building Services, Inc.
2016-CA-00818-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Curtis Brown, clubhouse manager at Colonial Country Club, suffered bilateral patellar tendon ruptures after an incident in the grill doorway at night in 2012; he sued the club’s cleaning contractor, Professional Building Services (PBS), for negligence.
- Brown’s account at trial: he walked into a chair left “right in the doorway” with the grill’s overhead lights off and immediately experienced severe bilateral knee pain followed by loss of consciousness and later required multiple surgeries and extended rehabilitation.
- Contemporaneous medical records and other statements contained alternative mechanisms (e.g., falling while running up stairs, or chasing a mouse), which Brown later could not recall; PBS relied on these inconsistencies at trial.
- PBS introduced a photograph (Exhibit 29) of a chair in the grill doorway taken later and during daylight; PBS admitted the chair was oriented differently than Brown described and the photograph was not contemporaneous.
- PBS offered Dr. Charles Bain, a medical doctor with engineering background and experience in biomechanics, who opined (based on literature review) that walking into a chair would be highly unlikely to produce bilateral patellar tendon ruptures.
- A jury returned a verdict for PBS. Brown appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings (admission of the photograph, exclusion of a treating-physician deposition answer), a denied jury instruction regarding lights being off, the admission of Dr. Bain’s expert testimony, and the court’s response to a juror note; the court addressed the photograph and expert testimony on the merits and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of recreated photograph (Ex. 29) | Photo was a staged, inaccurate recreation (chair misoriented, taken in daylight) and therefore irrelevant and inadmissible | Photo fairly depicted the doorway and Brown’s prior recorded statement that the chair was "right in the doorway"; inaccuracies were minor and could be explained to the jury | Court affirmed admission: trial judge did not abuse discretion; photo had probative value and inaccuracies could be pointed out to jury; lighting objection waived when not raised at trial |
| 2. Jury instruction mentioning lights being off | Requested instruction specifically informing jury overhead lights were off was necessary | Instruction was unnecessary or properly denied | Court found no abuse of discretion in denying the requested instruction (issue not discussed in detail) |
| 3. Admission of Dr. Charles Bain (biomechanics expert) | Dr. Bain’s opinions were unreliable and speculative: no testing, no site visit, did not examine Brown, and based on out-of-context literature | Dr. Bain was qualified by training/experience; his literature-based Injury Causation Analysis was relevant and assisted the jury | Court affirmed: trial judge did not abuse discretion admitting Dr. Bain; credentials and cited studies supported relevance and reliability; exclusion not required |
| 4. Exclusion of one deposition answer from treating physician | Exclusion improperly hampered Brown’s impeachment/evidence | Trial court properly exercised discretion | Court held no abuse of discretion (issue not elaborated) |
| 5. Trial court’s response to juror note (general instruction to continue) | Court’s note response was improper | Response was within discretion to manage deliberations | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion (issue not elaborated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tunica Cty. v. Matthews, 926 So.2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (trial judge has wide latitude to admit photographs)
- Beasley v. State, 136 So.3d 393 (Miss. 2014) (photographs need only some probative value to be admissible)
- Nelson v. Phoenix of Hartford Ins., 318 So.2d 839 (Miss. 1975) (noncontemporaneous photos admissible when changes are pointed out to jury)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Jackson, 636 So.2d 310 (Miss. 1992) (appellate court may forgo discussion of well-settled issues that add no jurisprudential value)
- Mitchell v. Glimm, 819 So.2d 548 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (physician/engineer-style credentials can support expert testimony in biomechanics/injury causation)
- Brent v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 133 So.3d 760 (Miss. 2013) (reversal for evidentiary error requires actual prejudice to a substantial right)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial judge gatekeeper analysis for expert testimony reliability and relevance)
- Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite, 53 So.3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (timeliness requirement for Daubert challenges and pretrial expert objections)