Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga, 333 P.3d 388

In Aug. 2006 Dawn Matsunaga rear-ended a car carrying professional golfer Cathy Johnston-Forbes, who sat in the rear seat between two car seats while leaning/twisting toward a child; Johnston-Forbes later developed chronic neck pain and a 2010 MRI showing a cervical herniated disc.
Johnston-Forbes sued Matsunaga for negligence; Matsunaga admitted the collision but disputed causation of the injury.
Matsunaga designated Dr. Allan Tencer, a biomechanics expert with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and 23 years as a UW biomechanical engineering professor, to testify about collision forces (not medical causation).
Johnston-Forbes moved in limine to exclude Tencer’s testimony, arguing lack of Washington engineering licensure, inadequate foundation (he did not inspect plaintiff’s car or photos thereof and relied on photos of defendant’s car taken years later), and that testimony would be confusing and prejudicial.
Trial court limited Tencer’s testimony (excluded a repair bill, barred him from opining on injury) but allowed biomechanical testimony; jury found no proximate causation. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the state supreme court likewise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tencer was qualified to testify as an expert	Tencer is not a Washington-licensed engineer and thus cannot give engineering opinions	Experience, Ph.D., publications, teaching and many tests qualify him by experience under ER 702	Qualified by experience; lack of license not dispositive
Whether Tencer’s methods/foundation were sufficient	His opinion lacked foundation: did not inspect plaintiff’s car or photos, relied on defendant’s photos taken years later, did not account for plaintiff’s body position	ER 703 permits experts to rely on facts/data not in evidence; weight, not admissibility, addresses lack of personal inspection	No abuse of discretion; foundation adequate for admission; shortcomings go to weight and cross-examination
Whether testimony would be helpful vs. misleading/prejudicial	Biomechanical testimony would be speculative and could mislead given limitations	Testimony on forces and comparison to daily activities assists jury on causation questions; trial court can limit scope	Trial court properly limited scope (no medical causation opinion) and admitted testimony as potentially helpful
Whether Frye/acceptance in scientific community was preserved	(Raised on appeal) Tencer’s methods not generally accepted; Frye challenge not preserved at trial	No Frye hearing requested below; not preserved for appeal	Frye challenge forfeited; court did not address it on appeal

Katare v. Ingraham, 175 Wn.2d 23 (recognizes qualification by experience and standards for expert admissibility)
Ma'ele v. Arrington, 111 Wn. App. 557 (upheld admission of Tencer’s biomechanics testimony in a low-speed collision case)
Stedman v. Cooper, 172 Wn. App. 9 (upheld exclusion of Tencer’s testimony where it could be more misleading than helpful; trial courts can reach different conclusions)
Berryman v. Metcalf, 177 Wn. App. 644 (affirmed exclusion of similar biomechanics testimony in another case)
Walker v. Bangs, 92 Wn.2d 854 (standards for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46 (articulates the classical test for general acceptance in the scientific community)