N. Hooks v. SEPTA
N. Hooks v. SEPTA - 946 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- On July 5, 2011 Nicole Hooks, a SEPTA assistant conductor, was struck and injured by a passenger and sued SEPTA for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
- Hooks retained George Frazier, a transportation security expert with extensive Amtrak and public-safety experience; SEPTA did not challenge his qualifications.
- Frazier’s opinion relied in part on six undocumented, out-of-court interviews of SEPTA conductors conducted at Hooks’ counsel’s referral; those interviewees did not testify.
- SEPTA objected at a Pa.R.E. 104 hearing, arguing the interviews were hearsay, undocumented, and untestable, and that Frazier merely relayed others’ conclusions.
- The trial court admitted Frazier’s testimony, gave a limiting jury instruction per Pa.R.E. 703 (telling jurors statements to the expert were admissible only to show the bases of the expert’s opinion), and the jury returned a $229,000 verdict for Hooks.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony based on materials experts customarily rely upon and in the limiting instruction given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert opinion based on out-of-court interviews | Frazier relied on interviews the same way experts customarily rely on such sources; his opinion was based on multiple sources and his expertise | Interviews were inadmissible hearsay, undocumented, and untestable; Frazier merely served as a conduit for others’ assertions | Admitted: Rule 703 permits experts to base opinions on materials not independently admissible if experts in the field customarily rely on them; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of expert’s independent analysis and methodology | Frazier applied accepted methodology, reviewed records/depositions, and used his experience to form independent opinions | Testimony lacked factual underpinnings and independent analysis; methodology unreliable | Adequate: Trial court found Frazier relied on multiple sources, personal experience, and accepted methods; Rule 702 requirements met |
| Need for limiting instruction when expert relies on inadmissible facts | Not disputed; instruction would allow jury to consider bases only for the opinion | Sought exclusion rather than reliance on instruction because underlying hearsay was prejudicial | Trial court properly gave a Pa.R.E. 703 limiting instruction restricting jury from treating interview content as substantive evidence |
| Entitlement to a new trial based on these evidentiary rulings | Admission did not prejudice outcome; proper exercise of discretion | Admission of hearsay-based expert testimony controlled the outcome and requires new trial | No new trial: appellate relief requires abuse of discretion or legal error affecting outcome; none shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummings v. State System of Higher Education, 860 A.2d 650 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (standard for granting new trial on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 731 A.2d 593 (Pa. 1999) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Collins v. Cooper, 746 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. 2000) (experts may rely on material not in evidence if customarily relied on in the field)
- Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 608 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 1992) (expert reliance on extrajudicial sources admissible and subject to cross-examination; factfinder must know bases for opinion)
- In re D.Y., 34 A.3d 177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (confirmation that Rule 703 permits expert reliance on hearsay if customary in field)
- In re Adoption of R.K.Y., 72 A.3d 669 (Pa. Super. 2013) (expert reliance on interviews conducted by colleagues satisfies Rules 703 and 705)
- Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority v. Reilly, 825 A.2d 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (expert testimony admissible where multiple sources, customary reliance, and expert’s own observation/knowledge are present)