Wheaton v. Bradford
2013 MT 121
Mont.2013Background
- Howards sued Bradfords for wrongful death and survivorship following a 2010 collision on US Highway 212 south of Red Lodge.
- Bradfords hired Townes to reconstruct the accident using the EDMSAC4 computer model.
- Townes based his opinion on final resting positions, scene measurements, vehicle data, and Margaret’s airbag module, but not Higgins’ statement in his disclosure.
- Howards objected pretrial via a motion in limine to exclude Townes’ simulations as speculative; the court did not rule in advance.
- Townes testified at trial that his simulations showed Margaret entering the northbound lane and John making an evasive maneuver; Howards unsuccessfully moved for a new trial.
- The District Court admitted Townes’ testimony; Howards appealed the judgment in Bradfords’ favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Townes’ opinions and simulations had a sufficient evidentiary foundation | Townes lacked adequate foundation; methods were speculative. | Townes used widely accepted, reliable accident reconstruction methods. | No error; Townes’ foundation and methodology were adequate. |
| Whether Bradfords violated Rule 26(e) by failing to supplement Townes’ disclosure | Bradfords failed to supplement after Townes’ deposition change regarding Higgins. | Townes’ opinion did not rely on Higgins; no supplementation required. | No violation; Townes did not rely on Higgins and disclosure was not incomplete. |
| Whether the denial of Howards’ motion for a new trial was erroneous | Surprise and improper admission of Townes’ testimony warrant new trial. | No actual surprise; Townes explained the basis for his opinion; no new trial warranted. | Affirmed; denial of new trial upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottrell v. Burlington Northern R.R., 261 Mont. 296 (1993) (admissibility of expert testimony and standards for foundation)
- McCormack v. Andres, 2008 MT 182 (2008) (district court broad discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Hulse v. State, 1998 MT 108 (1998) (Daubert-like considerations for novel scientific evidence)
- Clark v. Bell, 2009 MT 390 (2009) (standards for new-trial motions and surprise)
- Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 2003 MT 47 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard in denying a new trial)