Smith v. Clement
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00018-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00018-SCT ; 2006-CA-00018-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2007 Opinion Author: DIAZ, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Admission of expert testimony - Opportunity to be heard - M.R.E. 702 Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ. Dissenting Author : Smith, C.J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : CARLSON, DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, J., Concurs in Part and in Result. Concurs in Result Only: RANDOLPH, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-26-2005 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 96-049-PFM |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later modified and withdrawn on 4/3/2008 on a motion for rehearing. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LANIKIA SMITH, BY HER NEXT FRIEND,
BETTIE SMITH; CAMILLE CARTER, BY HER
NEXT FRIEND, LAREATHA CARTER; AMORY
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AMORY SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES |
DAVID B. McLAURIN
MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS
JASON LEE SHELTON |
||
| Appellee: | CHARLES CLEMENT d/b/a M & W BUTANE GAS COMPANY, INC. | MICHAEL F. MYERS |
|
|
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 - Admission of expert testimony - Opportunity to be heard - M.R.E. 702 |
| Summary of the Facts: | While attempting to escape a burning bus, Lanikia Smith and Camille Carter were severely burned. Through their parents, the girls filed suit against Amory School District. Amory in turn sought indemnity from Charles Clement, who as M & W Gas Company converted buses owned by Amory from gasoline to propane use. Amory retained an expert in mechanical engineering, who provided a five-page affidavit advancing his theory. Clement filed a motion to strike the affidavit as insufficient under M.R.E. 702 and Daubert, including counter-arguments proffered by his own expert, along with a motion for summary judgment. The court granted Clement’s motion to strike the expert’s affidavit and granted Clement’s motion for summary judgment. Amory, Smith, and Carter appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | At the summary judgment hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the expert has not been given an opportunity to further expound upon his scientific theory as to causation. In limine hearings are generally recommended prior to Daubert determinations. Perhaps before Daubert, such a determination could be made without a hearing, but the continual evolution of science and the growing intricacies of litigation mandate that the trial court’s role as “gatekeeper” be taken seriously. Therefore, the trial courts must carefully analyze the studies on which experts rely for their opinions before admitting their testimony. A hearing is simply the best method of guarding the admission of expert testimony. Yet, in some cases a court is not required to hold an actual hearing to comply with Daubert. In some cases an expert may be drastically unsuited to testify; for example, for a lack of standing within the proffered field or a discredited background. Yet that lack of a formalized inquiry must be balanced with some other opportunity to be heard for the parties. In this case, the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard regarding their expert testimony. Therefore, the affidavit of the expert was improperly struck by the trial court, and the order granting summary judgment regarding the causation of the school bus fire was also in error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
