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: 04-03-2008 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: AFFIRMED on motion for rehearing. The appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted. The previous opinions are withdrawn, and these opinions are substituted therefor. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Expert’s affidavit - M.R.E. 702 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Carlson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Waller, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Diaz, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Motion for Rehearing; 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: The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike an affidavit submitted by the plaintiff’s expert in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 96-049-PFM |
|
| 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 - Expert’s affidavit - M.R.E. 702 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. In 1981, the Amory School District engaged M & W Gas Company to convert several of its school buses from gasoline to propane fuel. After the conversion was completed, the buses were inspected and placed in service. During the fourteen years following the conversion, the buses were inspected annually. Outside contractors, including several automobile dealerships, provided regular maintenance and necessary repairs. In 1995, one of the buses caught fire. Two children on the bus, Lanikia Smith and Camille Carter, were burned while attempting to escape. The following year, the girls filed suit against Amory, alleging several theories of liability. Four years later, Amory filed a third-party complaint against M & W. The plaintiffs settled with Amory. M & W moved for summary judgment. When responding to the summary judgment motion, Amory included an affidavit from its expert who averred that the fire was caused by a leak in the copper tubing, which was improperly flared and that the copper tubing originally flared by M & W Gas Company in 1981 was the same copper tubing which was on the bus in 1995. M & W filed a motion to strike the affidavit. The trial court granted M & W’s motion to strike the affidavit and M & W’s motion for summary judgment. Amory appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In order to prevail, Amory was required to present some evidence of its theory that M & W negligently installed copper tubing when it converted Amory’s buses from gasoline to propane in 1981, and that the negligently-installed copper tubing caused the fire which injured the plaintiffs. Amory attempted to meet its burden by presenting the affidavit of its expert. Under M.R.E. 702, a trial judge – in performing his or her gate-keeping responsibilities – should examine whether the expert’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Amory’s expert opined that the copper tubing which caused the fire was the same copper tubing installed fourteen years earlier by M & H. Had there been no challenge to this opinion, it arguably might have been sufficient to defeat summary judgment. However, M & H challenged this opinion by producing expert testimony of its own. From May 5, 2005 (the date M & H’s expert’s affidavit attacked the scientific basis of Amory’s expert’s opinion), until October 27, 2005 (the date summary judgment was granted), neither Amory nor its expert submitted any evidence or scientific findings contradicting the opinion of M & H’s expert. Although Amory complains that the trial court did not conduct a Daubert hearing before reaching its decision, the Court has never held that a trial court is required to hold a formal Daubert hearing when an expert’s opinions are challenged. The Court only requires that, when an expert’s opinion is challenged, the party sponsoring the expert’s challenged opinion be given a fair opportunity to respond to the challenge. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding, from the evidence in the record, that Amory’s expert affidavit should be stricken. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
