Hosein v. Edman
166 A.3d 94
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On December 14, 2011 Nerissa Hosein’s vehicle collided with a Department of Transportation (DOT) vehicle driven by DOT employee Scot Edman; Hosein alleged Edman moved his parked DOT truck into the travel lane causing the crash.
- Edman testified his vehicle was parked on the grass with flashing lights and wheels cocked; he was about to drive when he was struck from behind by Hosein’s car.
- Plaintiff amended her complaint to sue only the DOT (vicarious liability); DOT pleaded comparative negligence and failure to keep lookout as an affirmative defense.
- Plaintiff disclosed Alfred Cipriani, an accident reconstructionist, as her expert; discovery delays were resolved and DOT did not timely press a pretrial exclusion on timeliness grounds.
- At the bench trial DOT repeatedly objected to Cipriani’s testimony as speculative; the trial court initially sustained several objections but then admitted Cipriani’s testimony in full to hear it and decide weight.
- The trial court found for DOT, concluding Hosein failed to prove DOT negligence and that Hosein’s own negligence was the proximate cause; the court described Cipriani’s opinion as speculative and gave it no weight. Plaintiff appealed claiming the court effectively precluded her expert without a Porter hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly precluded plaintiff’s expert and thus had to hold a Porter evidentiary hearing | Hosein: the court effectively discredited/ excluded Cipriani’s testimony without a Porter hearing, depriving her of the expert’s evidence | DOT: the court admitted Cipriani’s testimony over objections and properly weighed it as finder of fact | The court held the expert was admitted in full; the court weighed and rejected the expert’s opinions as speculative — no Porter hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (trial court may require evidentiary hearing before admitting certain expert evidence)
- Hicks v. State, 287 Conn. 421 (trial court has wide discretion on admissibility of expert testimony)
- Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225 (appellate deference to trial court credibility and fact-finding)
- State v. Washington, 155 Conn. App. 582 (trier of fact may accept or reject expert opinions and weigh underlying facts)