McKenzie v. Supervalu, Inc., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-01540-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-05-2004
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 704 - Discovery supplementation - M.R.C.P. 26 (b)(4)(A)(i) - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-28-2002
Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray
Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES
Case Number: 2001-108

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Kelvin McKenzie




JOHN H. COX



 

Appellee: Supervalu, Inc. and Buster Peeples LAWRENCE D. WADE  

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. 704 - Discovery supplementation - M.R.C.P. 26 (b)(4)(A)(i) - Weight of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Kelvin McKenzie filed suit against Supervalu, Inc. and its employee, Buster Peeples, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained during an automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict for Supervalu and Peeples. McKenzie appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert testimony McKenzie argues that the court erred in admitting expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist’s report, because the report goes beyond the type of expert opinion testimony ordinarily admitted pursuant to M.R.E. 704. McKenzie’s sole objection at trial was that the expert’s testimony invaded the province of the jury. Under Rule 704, this is insufficient grounds for exclusion. Issue 2: Discovery supplementation McKenzie argues that the court erred in allowing the accident reconstructionist to use different numbers in calculating the speed at which he believed McKenzie's vehicle was traveling, because the expert's prior report should have been supplemented under M.R.C.P. 26 (f). M.R.C.P. 26 (b)(4)(A)(i) provides guidelines of what information regarding experts must be disclosed during discovery. In this case, the expert's testimony and calculations relied on distances and speeds that were reported to him. When the reports of speed and distance changed at trial, the expert recalculated his opinion using the same methods and formulas that were admitted into evidence. The subject matter or substance of his testimony did not change. Issue 3: Weight of evidence McKenzie argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Due to the conflicting facts presented at trial, the outcome of the case hinged on the jury's determination of which rendition of facts the jury believed occurred. The jury determined that Supervalu and Peeples were not liable for the injuries McKenzie suffered as a result of the accident. Based on the record, there was substantial evidence presented to support this verdict.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court