Carrizoza v. Zahn, No. 1
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | OGG |
| Citation | 21 Ariz.App. 94,515 P.2d 1192 |
| Parties | Esmundo G. CARRIZOZA, Appellant, v. Edward A. ZAHN and Carol S. Zahn, husband and wife, Appellees. 1835. |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1 |
Page 1192
v.
Edward A. ZAHN and Carol S. Zahn, husband and wife, Appellees.
O'Reilly, Pizzo & Aeed by Patrick W. O'Reilly, Charles S. Pizzo, Phoenix, for appellant.
Lewis & Roca by John P. Frank, Roger W. Kaufman, Thomas C. Horne, Phoenix, for appellees.
OGG, Acting Presiding Judge.
There is one primary issue to be determined in this automobile negligence appeal: Was there sufficient foundation evidence for the trial court to permit an accident reconstruction expert to give his opinion relative to the speed of the vehicles involved in the accident?
The plaintiff, Esmundo Carrizoza, appeals from an adverse jury verdict rendered against him in his civil action with the defendants Edward A. Zahn and Carol S. Zahn, his wife.
The accident occurred at an uncontrolled intersection. The defendant Zahn admitted he did not see the plaintiff Carrizoza and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of 'failure to yield the right of way' after he was cited by the investigating officer. A Phoenix Police officer who was not the investigating officer was allowed to testify as an accident reconstruction expert. The trial court, over objection, allowed him to testify as to the speed of plaintiff's vehicle at the time of impact. The plaintiff testified that he was traveling 10 to 15 miles per hour while it was the expert's opinion the plaintiff was going 30 miles an hour.
Several states will not allow an accident reconstruction expert to give opinions in this field for the reason such an opinion is hearsay and infringes upon the function of the jurors as the finders of fact. The appellate courts of Arizona do [21 Ariz.App. 95]
Page 1193
allow a properly qualified expert to interpret facts in evidence and give an opinion which the jury is not qualified to make or where such an opinion would be helpful to the jury. Goslin v. Bacome, 107 Ariz. 432, 489 P.2d 242 (1971); Patterson v. Chenowith, 89 Ariz. 183, 360 P.2d 202 (1961); Anglin v. Nichols, 80 Ariz. 346, 297 P.2d 932 (1956); City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, 1 Ariz.App. 510, 405 P.2d 301 (1965).Although such testimony may be admissible, the Arizona courts have been very careful in requiring an expert who did not view the accident to have sufficient valid information as a foundation before he can give an opinion on speed. In Mutz v. Lucero, 90 Ariz. 38, 365 P.2d 49 (1961), the Arizona Supreme Court held that the use of skidmarks to show direction and course of travel will have no probative effect unless the skidmarks are properly shown to have been made by the vehicles involved in the accident in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Treadaway, No. 3116
...in the absence of such expert knowledge. Cf. Alires v. Southern Pacific Co., 93 Ariz. 97, 378 P.2d 913 (1963); Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App. 94, 515 P.2d 1192 (1973). We are particularly reluctant when the evidence is of such a highly prejudicial nature that some jurists and commentators ......
-
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello, No. 1
...in evidence, the opinion is improper evidence. Alires v. Southern Pacific Company, 93 Ariz. 97, 373 P.2d 913 (1963); Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App. 94, 515 P.2d 1192 In this case, there was no evidence concerning the competency and standard of work done by Scubic Brothers and Butch's. Howe......
-
Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co., No. 1
...after viewing the photographs. An expert may base an opinion on exhibits which are properly admitted into evidence. Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App. 94, 95, 515 P.2d 1192, 1193 (1973). See also City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, 1 Ariz.App. 510, 405 P.2d 301 (1965), where the Court held that an e......
-
Bucho-Gonzalez v. Life Time Fitness Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 16-0691
..."caused the injuries that she suffered." This circular reasoning does not create an "inference of causation." See Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz. App. 94, 95 (1973) (expert must "base his opinion only upon competent evidence").¶13 Gonzalez also cites Browne's testimony that Baer found "one of t......
-
State v. Treadaway, No. 3116
...in the absence of such expert knowledge. Cf. Alires v. Southern Pacific Co., 93 Ariz. 97, 378 P.2d 913 (1963); Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App. 94, 515 P.2d 1192 (1973). We are particularly reluctant when the evidence is of such a highly prejudicial nature that some jurists and commentators ......
-
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello, No. 1
...in evidence, the opinion is improper evidence. Alires v. Southern Pacific Company, 93 Ariz. 97, 373 P.2d 913 (1963); Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App. 94, 515 P.2d 1192 In this case, there was no evidence concerning the competency and standard of work done by Scubic Brothers and Butch's. Howe......
-
Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co., No. 1
...after viewing the photographs. An expert may base an opinion on exhibits which are properly admitted into evidence. Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz.App. 94, 95, 515 P.2d 1192, 1193 (1973). See also City of Phoenix v. Schroeder, 1 Ariz.App. 510, 405 P.2d 301 (1965), where the Court held that an e......
-
Bucho-Gonzalez v. Life Time Fitness Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 16-0691
..."caused the injuries that she suffered." This circular reasoning does not create an "inference of causation." See Carrizoza v. Zahn, 21 Ariz. App. 94, 95 (1973) (expert must "base his opinion only upon competent evidence").¶13 Gonzalez also cites Browne's testimony that Baer found "one of t......