During a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a child pedestrian, the court ruled on the permissible scope of testimony from an accident reconstruction expert.
The plaintiffs sought to elicit opinion evidence concerning alleged deficiencies in the defendant vehicle’s braking system and on driver perception and reaction times.
The court held that Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires expert reports to clearly state the opinions being advanced and their factual bases, and an expert cannot introduce a new field of opinion not articulated in the report.
Because the expert’s reports did not opine that the brake condition contributed to the collision, such testimony would improperly expand the report.
The court also barred additional human factors opinion evidence as duplicative of testimony already provided by a qualified human factors expert.
