Maria E. Thompson v. Dennis L Holliman, 283 So.3d 718

Collision on April 7, 2013 in a privately owned Biloxi gas-station parking lot: Holliman (truck with trailer) struck Thompson (Nissan) as Holliman moved through a pump bay and Thompson was exiting.
Thompson sued Holliman for negligence, alleging failure to maintain lookout and control; she designated Jason Walton as an accident-reconstruction expert.
Walton’s initial report used "typical" driver assumptions and was stricken; Walton subsequently conducted on-site sampling (average speeds, stopping distances) and produced an amended report.
Trial court granted Holliman’s motion to exclude Walton under M.R.E. 702/Daubert, finding Walton’s methodology unreliable and insufficiently case-specific; jury returned a verdict for Holliman; circuit court affirmed.
Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the exclusion: Walton was qualified and his testimony relevant, but the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding the testimony unreliable under the gatekeeping standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Walton’s expert testimony under M.R.E. 702/Daubert	Walton’s time‑distance, speed sampling, and stopping‑distance calculations were standard accident‑reconstruction methods that would assist the jury	Walton’s reports relied on "typical" assumptions, lacked case‑specific data (vehicle comparators, precise conditions), and had no showing of general acceptance or accepted protocols	Court: Walton qualified and relevant, but testimony unreliable; exclusion was within trial court’s gatekeeping discretion and affirmed
Use of common‑law standards in private parking lot / whether lack of statutory protocols prevents expert causation opinion	Common‑law duty of reasonable care and lookout applies on private property; expert may apply these standards and use reasonable measurements/estimates to assist jurors	Without statutory protocols or case‑specific speed data, there is too great an analytical gap to tie Walton’s sampling to causation	Court: Majority agreed analytical gap justified exclusion; dissent argued common‑law duties suffice and exclusion was an abuse of discretion

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial judge must assess reliability and relevance of expert scientific testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony; reliability inquiry is flexible)
Denham v. Holmes ex rel. Holmes, 60 So. 3d 773 (Miss. 2011) (timing/distance estimates can be admissible while certain ultimate causation opinions may be excluded if an analytical gap exists)
Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (trial court’s gatekeeping role under Daubert/M.R.E. 702)
Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite, 53 So. 3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (low threshold for relevance; Daubert reliability factors applied)
Inv’r Res. Servs., Inc. v. Cato, 15 So. 3d 412 (Miss. 2009) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion)
Hollingsworth v. Bovaird Supply Co., 465 So. 2d 311 (Miss. 1985) (accident‑reconstruction experts may opine on ultimate facts but remain subject to gatekeeping)
Ballard Realty Co. v. Ohazurike, 97 So. 3d 52 (Miss. 2012) (expert opinions must be based on sufficient facts/data and reliable methods)