Denham v. Holmes ex rel. Holmes
2011 Miss. LEXIS 192
Miss.2011Background
- Denham and Caldwell sued Holmes in Lafayette County Circuit Court for negligent operation of a motor vehicle arising from a collision that injured the plaintiffs.
- The jury found for Holmes; the circuit court entered judgment accordingly; the Court of Appeals reversed for a new trial.
- Denham and Caldwell designated Donald Rawson, a traffic-collision reconstructionist, as their expert; Holmes moved to exclude Rawson’s deposition testimony as unreliable.
- The trial court excluded Rawson’s ultimate causation opinion but allowed timing/distance portions for identification; Closing arguments referenced the lack of expert testimony after its exclusion.
- The Court of Appeals remanded for new trial, finding error in excluding Rawson’s testimony, in instructing the jury to disregard defense comments, and in granting certain jury instructions.
- This Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding D-4 reversible and D-9 non-reversible, upholding/overruling other issues, and remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D-4 misstates law and conflicts with D-10 | Denham | Holmes | Instruction D-4 reversible error |
| Whether D-9 allowing Denham’s fault consideration was reversible | Denham | Holmes | D-9 not reversible error |
| Whether the court should admonish the jury to disregard defense closing argument remarks about lack of expert testimony | Denham | Holmes | Court did not err in not admonishing |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Rawson’s expert testimony on causation/avoidance under Daubert and Rule 702 | Denham | Holmes | Partial abuse for timing/distance; exclusion of ultimate causation opinion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S.D. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Hubbard v. McDonald’s Corp., 41 So.3d 670 (Miss. 2010) (threshold relevance and gatekeeping under Rule 702; credibility for jury)
- McLemore (Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore), 863 So.2d 31 (Miss.2003) (Daubert-based admissibility; cross-examination and jury instruction as checks)
- Eckman v. State, 876 So.2d 975 (Miss.2004) (prohibition on improper closing arguments; legitimate purpose of closing argument)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Pou, 204 So.2d 155 (Miss.1967) (closing arguments should aid evaluation of evidence, not inflame passion)
- Southland Enters., Inc. v. Newton County, 838 So.2d 286 (Miss.2003) (instruction fairness and thus caution against misleading jury questions)
- Richardson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 923 So.2d 1002 (Miss.2006) (approach to evaluating jury instructions taken as a whole)
- Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694 (Miss.1988) (admonitions and harmless prejudice analysis in closing arguments)
- Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246 (Miss.1996) (promissory statements in opening may be responded to in closing)
- Hillion v. Bovaird, 465 So.2d 311 (Miss.1985) (accident reconstruction expert admissibility context)