Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) -Appraiser's expert testimony that land within 750 feet of proposed interstate highway was more adversely affected and suffered more damage was entirely speculative and inadmissible in eminent domain case; the theory that the most affected portion of the property terminated at a distance of 750 feet from the interstate right-of-way could not be tested since the location of the imaginary boundary line was not based on any principle, the theory was not subjected to any peer review, a high potential for error existed, there was no evidence of standards, and the appraiser admitted that the method was unique to the appraisal. The court also found that this testimony would not have met the abandoned Frye standard.

Tunica County v. Matthews, 926 So.2d 209 (Miss. 2006) – Same expert appraiser as in McLemore was allowed to testify:
In McLemore, we reversed the admission of expert testimony of a land appraisal in part because the method the expert employed in his appraisal was not printed in any textbook, not taught in seminars, unique to the McLemore appraisal, not a principle of any kind, and not taught in any of the licensing courses the expert completed. The methodology employed by Dunklin in this case, however, meets the criteria of both Rule 702 and McLemore. The experts both agreed on using the comparable land sales approach as the proper methodology to value the land, a methodology that easily meets the Daubert factors.

Webb v. Braswell, 930 So.2d 387 (Miss. 2006) -Agricultural economist was not allowed to testify as to future lost profits farmers would have made if bank had made crop production loan. Farmers had been operating at a loss for years, so past experience would not allow future profits to be reasonably ascertained. Court explained that the testimony was “tenuous at best and fails the reliability prong.” Edmonds v. State, 2007 WL14808 (Miss. 2007) – Court upheld exclusion of expert’s testimony regarding involuntariness of 13-year-old’s confession to murder, as expert herself admitted that her theories could not be empirically tested. Expert also testified that the fatal gunshot wound was caused by a weapon that was fired by two people at once. Really?

Poole ex rel. Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Poole v. Avara, 908 So.2d 716 (Miss. 2005) – Doctor was allowed to testify that CPR and resuscitation efforts had caused an anastomosis on a patient’s colon to tear, rather than the tear being the result of the doctor’s negligent decision to perform the anastomosis. After a very extensive Daubert analysis, the testimony was allowed, even though it was a “novel” theory that had not been subject to peer review, with the Court explaining that the Daubert factors were not exhaustive, but illustrative, and certainly will depend on the facts in each case. This opinion is worth reading.

Smith v. Clement, 2008 WL 880163 (Miss.) – School bus fire allegedly caused by negligent conversion of buses from gasoline to propane fuel. School district’s expert was not allowed to testify as to the age of some copper tubing allegedly installed fourteen years earlier. Court held that it does not require a formal Daubert hearing in every case, only that, when an expert’s opinion is challenged, that both sides be given an opportunity to be heard on the issue.

Watts v. Radiator Specialty Company, 2008 WL 2372694 (Miss.) – Court emphasized the two-prong inquiry of (1) a qualified witness, and (2) relevant and reliable testimony. Epidemiological expert was not allowed to testify on issue of causation, namely that benzene-containing “Liquid Wrench” solvent used for cleaning tools caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Court noted that relevance depends upon whether the reasoning or methodology employed by the expert witness may be properly applied to the facts at hand. Noting the difficulties with epidemiological studies, the Court made note that none of the studies cited by the expert showed a causal link. “We made [the trial courts] the gatekeepers of expert testimony, not the doormen. 

Back | Next: Basic Expert Witness Deposition Outline