Person v. Shipley
949 N.E.2d 386
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Person, the driver of a semi-tractor trailer carrying bananas, was allegedly injured when Shipley rear-ended him on I-80 in Elkhart County.
- Person sued Shipley for neck and lower back injuries arising from the November 16, 2002 collision.
- Before trial, Person moved to exclude Shipley’s two expert witnesses, Turner and Lazoff; motion to exclude was deemed untimely but would be addressed at trial.
- During trial, Person renewed objections to Turner's and Lazoff's testimony; the trial court admitted the expert testimony over objections.
- The jury returned a verdict for Shipley with no damages awarded to Person; judgment was entered in Shipley’s favor.
- On appeal, Person argued the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the experts’ opinions, which prejudiced his rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Turner's velocity/impact opinions were admissible | Turner relied on unfounded assumptions about speeds and weights. | Turner was qualified and his methods valid. | Abuse of discretion; Turner's opinions were unreliable and inadmissible |
| Whether admission of Turner's unreliable testimony tainted Lazoff's opinion | Lazoff relied on Turner's findings, so Turner's unreliability compromised Lazoff. | Lazoff's medical causation independent of Turner's calculations. | Prejudicial error; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Servs., Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. 1999) (gatekeeping role and admissibility of expert testimony)
- Spaulding v. Harris, 914 N.E.2d 820 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (test for admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
- Brooks v. Friedman, 769 N.E.2d 696 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (credibility and evaluation of expert testimony on appeal)
- Faulkner v. Markkay of Indiana, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 798 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Decker v. Zengler, 883 N.E.2d 839 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (harmless error and substantial rights in evidentiary rulings)
- Bennett v. Richmond, 932 N.E.2d 704 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (Rule 702 and substantial rights analysis)
- Armstrong v. Cerestar USA, Inc., 775 N.E.2d 360 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (reliability and admissibility of expert testimony standards)
- Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Estate of Wagers, 833 N.E.2d 93 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (gatekeeping and admission of expert testimony)
- Hoffman v. Dept. of Transp., 721 N.E.2d 356 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (standard for evaluating expert testimony admissibility)
- Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 696 N.E.2d 465 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (experts may be qualified in related technical fields)