Clack v. Hasnat

• Decision Date: 13 March 2020
• Docket Number: A19A1742
• Citation: 841 S.E.2d 210,354 Ga.App. 502
• Parties: CLACK et al. v. HASNAT et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

354 Ga.App. 502

841 S.E.2d 210

CLACK et al.

v.HASNAT et al.

A19A1742

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 13, 2020

Terry Dale Jackson, for Appellant.

Evan Richard Mermelstein, for Appellee.

McFadden, Chief Judge.

Jason Clack was riding his motorcycle when he collided with an automobile occupied by defendants Kazi Hasnat and Tanjila Hasnat.¹ Jason Clack died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Plaintiffs Brittany Clack and Courtney Clack, individually, and James Clack, as the administrator of Jason Clack’s estate, filed this wrongful death and negligence action against the Hasnats. Following a trial and jury verdict in favor of the defendants, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The plaintiffs then filed this appeal.

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to estimate the speed of the motorcycle based on its engine sound, but the trial court did not abuse his discretion in allowing the evidence. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after testimony that Jason Clack would have been cited for driving under the influence ("DUI") of methamphetamine had he survived, but the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard this improper testimony was a proper exercise of discretion. Finally, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for new trial, but they have offered no argument or citation to authority in support of this claim beyond the two nonmeritorious arguments listed above, So we affirm.

1. Testimony regarding the speed of the motorcycle based on its engine sound.

At trial, several witnesses testified that based on the sound of the motorcycle’s engine, Jason Clack was accelerating and driving at a high rate of speed — approximately 80 to 100 miles per hour — just before the collision. In addition, Thomas Hunnicutt, a police officer who heard the accident from one-fourth of a mile away, testified that based on its sound the motorcycle’s speed was between 60 and 80 miles per hour before impact. The plaintiffs argue that this testimony was inadmissible because the witnesses did not actually see the motorcycle at the time of impact, and a witness may only estimate a vehicle’s speed if he or she saw the vehicle at the time of the accident. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony, because the witnesses stated the facts upon which their opinions were based.

"A trial court’s decision regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Steen-Jorgensen v. Huff , 352 Ga. App. 727, 732 (3), 835 S.E.2d 707 (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Moran v. Kia Motors America , 276 Ga. App. 96, 98 (2), 622 S.E.2d 439 (2005) ("It is well settled that the determination of whether the witness has established sufficient opportunity for forming a correct opinion, and a proper basis for expressing his opinion, is for the trial court. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

OCGA § 24-7-701 (a) provides that if a witness is not testifying as an expert, his or her testimony in the form of opinions or inferences shall be limited to those which are: "(1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; (2) Helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; and (3) Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Code Section 24-7-702." "A layman’s opinion of speed is admissible in evidence when he has testified as to the facts upon which the opinion is based. The weight and consideration to be given such evidence is for the jury." Horton v. State , 119 Ga. App. 43, 44 (3), 166 S.E.2d 47 (1969) ; see also Fouts v. Builders Transport , 222 Ga. App. 568, 575 (1), 474 S.E.2d 746 (1996) ("It is well established that a lay witness may express opinions regarding traffic signals, speed, distance, and stopping distances based on the witness’s observations."); Eastern Dehydrating Co. v. Brown , 112 Ga. App. 349, 351-352 (4), 145 S.E.2d 274 (1965) ("It is not error to allow witnesses to testify to their opinions of the speed of an automobile, whether they be expert or lay witnesses, where they have properly stated the facts upon which their opinions are based.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

Here, the witnesses testified to the facts upon which their estimates of the motorcycle’s speed were based. Specifically, they explained that their opinions were based on: their experience riding motorcycles; their experience hearing and seeing motorcycles, including Jason Clack’s particular motorcycle, being ridden at high rates of speed; and the manner in which Clack’s motorcycle passed the witnesses’ vehicles and crested hills. See Fouts , 222 Ga. App. at 575-576 (1), 474 S.E.2d 746 (trial court did not err in permitting a witness to express her opinion as to whether a truck could have stopped if its brakes were in working order, where she testified to the reasons for her opinion, including her observations of the accident and her experience observing trucks stopping and braking); Ewing v. Johnston , 175 Ga. App. 760, 767 (3), 334 S.E.2d 703 (1985) (witness was permitted to express his opinion as to a vehicle’s speed, where he testified to the reasons for his opinion, including that the vehicle knocked off the tire from his own, heavier vehicle).

This factual foundation permitted the witnesses to estimate the motorcycle’s speed just before and at the time of impact, even though they did not view the impact. See Hill v. Kirk , 78 Ga. App. 310, 310, 50 S.E.2d 785 (1948) (trial court did not err in allowing witness to testify that he could not tell how fast a vehicle was going "because the only thing he saw was the headlights approaching, and he heard the noise, but did know that it was going well over 35 miles per hour," where his opinion was based on his knowledge of driving cars); Engle v. Finch , 37 Ga. App. 389, 390, 140 S.E. 632 (1927) ("[T]he witness may, from hearing the noise which the automobile made while in motion and from hearing the impact when it collided with the poles and from observing its condition after it had been wrecked, form an estimate of the speed at which the automobile was traveling, although the witness did not see the automobile."). The weight to be accorded to these estimates was a matter to be determined by the jury. See Horton , 119 Ga. App. at 44 (3), 166 S.E.2d 47.

2. Expert testimony .

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in "allowing late-identified and unqualified expert witnesses to testify at trial."

Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge the testimony of Jason Hatcher, an investigator with the Henry County Police Department, and Joseph Austin, a forensic toxicologist with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

[W]ith regard to the qualification of a witness as an expert, the question of whether a witness is qualified to give his opinion as an expert is one for the court. Its determination will not be disturbed except that it be manifestly abused. As to the expertise required of such a witness, generally nothing more is required to qualify an expert than that he has been educated in a particular trade or profession; and this special knowledge may be derived from experience as well as study and mental application.

Fortner v. Town of Register , 289 Ga. App. 543, 548 (2), 657 S.E.2d 620 (2008) (citations and punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 24-7-702 (b).

(a) Jason Hatcher.

The plaintiffs’ claim that Hatcher should have been excluded from testifying at trial because he was identified too late fails for two reasons. First, the plaintiffs did not seek to exclude Hatcher from testifying at trial on the basis that he was identified too late, and "[i]ssues never raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal." Lapolla Indus. v. Hess , 325 Ga. App. 256, 261 (2), 750 S.E.2d 467 (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted). Second, the defendants identified Hatcher as a potential witness in the consolidated pre-trial order. Compare Ballard v. Meyers , 275 Ga. 819, 820, 572 S.E.2d 572 (2002) (as a sanction for non-disclosure, a party may be excluded from calling a witness who was not disclosed in the pre-trial order).

The plaintiffs also argue that Hatcher was not qualified to testify regarding the cause of the collision because he did not reconstruct the collision, did not compute the motorcycle’s speed, did not conduct time and distance calculations of the Hasnats’ automobile, and based his conclusion solely on the fact that Jason Clack tested positive for methamphetamine. We disagree.

It has long been recognized that a police officer with investigative training and experience on automobile collisions is an expert, although of course the credibility and weight to be given his testimony is for the jury. Such an officer is an expert even if he is not trained to reconstruct traffic accidents; and, as an expert, the investigating officer is allowed to testify about what he observed at the accident scene and to give his conclusions from those observations about what happened (as opposed to which party was at fault).

Fortner , 289 Ga. App. at 545 (1), 657 S.E.2d 620 (citations and punctuation omitted); see also McMichen v. Moattar , 221 Ga. App. 230, 230 (1), 470 S.E.2d 800 (1996) ("[A]s a general rule, where an investigating officer’s training and experience qualify him as an expert, it is proper for the officer to testify concerning the cause of an accident.").

Here, Hatcher had 16 years of experience with the Henry County Police Department, had conducted traffic investigations since 2009, and had received training on such investigations. Hatcher testified that he was the lead investigator of this accident and...