Daughtery v. Conley
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02092-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2004 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Causation Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2003 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: George B. Ready Disposition: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT GRANTED Case Number: CV99-154 R/D |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Terry Daughtery |
DANIEL M. CZAMANSKE, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Valerie D. Conley | DAWN DAVIS CARSON ROBERT L. MOORE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terry Daughtery, a passenger, brought a negligence action against Valerie Conley, the driver of another automobile, to recover for damages from appendicitis allegedly caused by the collision. The court granted Conley's motion for directed verdict, and Daughtery appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Daughtery argues that the court should not have granted Conley's motion for a directed verdict because expert medical testimony had established that it was more probable than not that the automobile collision caused Daughtery's appendicitis. In evaluating expert testimony under M.R.E. 702, the court must determine whether the evidence is relevant and whether the proffered testimony is reliable. The court has considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable. At trial, Daughtery and Conley each presented expert medical testimony from two medical doctors. Conley's witnesses testified that the causal connection between this type of collision and an appendicitis was anecdotal and impossible respectively. Daughtery offered testimony from two doctors. While the evidence presented clearly reflects the existence of a theory within the medical community regarding a causal connection between automobile collisions and appendicitis, the court appropriately determined that Daughtery failed to present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the theory of a causal connection between rear-impact vehicle collisions and appendicitis enjoys general acceptance within the medical community. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
