Ferris v. Myers

Decision Date12 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. 5344,5344
Citation625 P.2d 199
PartiesRichard C. FERRIS and Betty J. Ferris, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Catherine Ann MYERS, Appellee (Defendant).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Robert P. Schuster of Spence, Moriarity & Schuster, Jackson, for appellants.

W. W. Reeves of Vlastos & Reeves, Casper, for appellee.

Before ROSE, C. J. *, McCLINTOCK, RAPER **, THOMAS and ROONEY, JJ.

RAPER, Justice.

This appeal arises out of a tort action initiated in the district court by appellants against appellee seeking damages resulting from an automobile collision on Togwotee Pass. The case was tried to a jury which, on May 8, 1980, returned a verdict finding the appellee 100% at fault and awarding $2,090.00 to appellant Richard C. Ferris and $365.00 to appellant Betty J. Ferris. Judgment was accordingly entered by the trial judge on May 23, 1980. A motion for new trial was made by appellants and denied.

Appellants present two issues 1 for review:

"1. Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in refusing to allow plaintiffs- -appellants' accident reconstruction expert to testify concerning the speed of a vehicle when such refusal was based on grounds of inadequate foundation?

"2. Was the verdict rendered by the jury inadequate as a matter of law?

We will affirm.

I

Since there is no dispute in this appeal as to the 100% fault of appellee, very little needs to be said by way of background to set the automobile collision scene. On February 12, 1976, at about 10:30 p. m. appellee was driving from college in Billings, Montana to Jackson. As she approached a curve on Togwotee Pass at a higher-than-safe rate of speed for the snowpacked condition of the road, she lost control of her vehicle. It went out of her lane of travel and into the lane of travel of appellants' vehicle being driven by appellant Mr. Ferris with his wife, Mrs. Ferris, as a passenger in the front seat. The appellants were traveling from Jackson to their home outside of Dubois. The vehicles collided, appellee's vehicle striking the door of the appellants' vehicle next to which Mrs. Ferris was sitting. The predominant issues during the trial went to damages, and they are the issues at the bottom of this appeal. Other facts necessary to an understanding of this opinion will be developed in our consideration of the issues.

II

The first issue 2 arose during the course of the trial when some counsel apparently had mentioned in an opening statement 3 something about a Utah automobile collision occurrence in which appellants were involved on October 2, 1976. The Utah incident first came into evidence when Mr. Ferris was interrogated about it by his counsel during appellants' case in chief. It was a rear ender into appellants' vehicle by another car. Two photographs of the damage to appellants' car were received in evidence. Repair costs were $1,100-$1,300.

Appellants called as an expert witness an accident reconstruction engineer whom appellants' counsel attempted to interrogate about the Utah collision. Considerable testimony by the expert about the Togwotee Pass collision was allowed in evidence by the trial judge. Appellee's counsel interrupted the interrogation about the Utah collision, requested and was granted leave by the trial judge to voir dire:

"BY MR. REEVES:

"Q. Have you seen any pictures of the car that ran into this?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. Do you know the length of skid marks left by either vehicle?

"A. No. I don't feel I need to.

"Q. I'm sure you don't feel you need to, but please just answer the question.

"Do you know the length of skid marks of the vehicle that ran into this? Yes or no.

"A. No. I don't specifically, no.

"Q. Do you know the damage to the front end of this vehicle?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Have you seen any photographs of it?

"A. I haven't seen any photographs of it.

"Q. What's your source of knowledge?

"A. Testimony that has been given.

"Q. Anything else?

"A. Yes. I believe I have seen a repair estimate.

"Q. Do you know the damage to the Volkswagon that was in front of this vehicle?

"A. I know each one of those from the Officer's indication of dollar value.

"Q. On the highway report from Utah?

"A. When I talked to him about this accident I

"Q. Did you talk to the Officer in Utah about this accident?

"A. Yes.

"Q. When did you do that?

"A. Approximately a week ago.

"Q. Okay. Do you have any other source of knowledge? You talked to the Officer in Utah, you heard Mr. Ferris testify, and you have seen the Officer's estimate of damage.

"A. Diagram.

"Q. Does his diagram have anything to do with this?

"A. Oh, yes.

"Q. What, on his diagram, is figured into your equasion? (sic) 4

"A. Well, I know

"Q. Please. What, on his diagram, is figured into your equasion? Give us a number to put into your equasion.

"A. Nothing on the diagram. I think those pictures

"Q. Well, Mr. Crawford

"A. May I finish?

"Q. Yes. Go ahead.

"A. I think those pictures clearly indicate

"Q. You're not answering my question. I won't interrupt if you answer my question. I asked you: What, on the Officer's diagram, gives you a number to put in this equasion? And you said nothing.

"A. Not on the diagram.

"Q. That's where we are. I'll ask you another question. I know there's a lot of things you want to say, but, please, answer my question.

"Is there anything in what the Officer in Utah told you over the phone that gives you a number to put into your equasion? Yes or no.

"A. No. I don't think there's anything he told me on the phone.

"Q. Please. Yes or no.

"A. No.

"Q. 'No' is the answer?

"A. No.

"Q. What you're doing, you're making a mathematical equasion. It's just like 2 and 2 is 4, but it's more complicated than that?

"A. May I answer that?

"Q. Yes.

"A. No.

"Q. Do you add non-mathematical that is, non-engineering factors to your equasion?

"A. No. I know what the back of that vehicle will withstand. I know when the damage occurs.

"Q. Excuse me

"A. I'm trying to answer your question.

"MR. SCHUSTER: Your Honor, if you please, may I attempt to lay the foundation for this and proceed with the examination?

"THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Reeves.

"Q. (By Mr. Reeves) Thank you. You take from these photographs a certain factor that you put into a mathematical equasion, hit the buttons on your computer and it says 20 miles an hour or 60 miles an hour. That's what you do, isn't it?

"A. I think you have to use some judgment. You have to know what the vehicle is made of. You have to know a lot of things.

"Q. Yes, but it's those things that give you the numbers to put into your equasion?

"A. Certainly, I do run these into the calculator.

"Q. And you use your judgment in getting the numbers to put in the equasion.

"Now, did you use any estimates of damage to the car that was in front of this car to get numbers to put into your equasion?

"A. I didn't think that was relevant. What I wanted to know

"Q. Please. Yes or no.

"A. No.

"Q. I know you want to tell me what's relevant, but I'll do my best.

"Did you get any numbers to put into your equasion from the statements of Mr. or Mrs. Ferris? Did they tell you anything that you converted into numbers?

"A. No.

"Q. What's in your equasion? Only this damage?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Or did you make a mathematical equasion?

"A. I don't think I have to.

"Q. There's nothing times anything because you don't know the other parts of the equasion because you don't have the other facts, do you?

"A. That's incorrect.

"Q. You made no you're going to make a judgment without any mathematical assistance about speed of the car that ran into this one?

"A. Knowing the structure of that; knowing that's a 5 mile an hour bumper.

"Q. That's what you're going to do, isn't it?

"A. That's correct.

"MR. REEVES: Okay. I object. There is no foundation because the other critical factors involved in arriving at an equasion speed judgment are not present.

"THE COURT: At the present time the objection is sustained, and it's lunch time and the jury will go to lunch while Mr. Schuster makes an offer of proof.

"MR. SCHUSTER: I'm not going to make an offer of proof after all that. I'm done with it.

"THE COURT: You are?

"MR. SCHUSTER: You bet.

"THE COURT: Okay. Then we will be in recess until 2:00 o'clock. We will have lunch.

"Remember the admonitions I originally gave you with respect to this case.

"Thank you. You may step down. I want to put something on the record after the jury leaves.

"(Jury leaves courtroom)

"THE COURT: Let the record show the Court has in its hand a certified copy of the guilty plea from this accident by the defendant on February 26, 1976, showing she was fined $20 with $5 court costs, and it's signed by R. E. Steward (sic). I know R. E. Stewart (sic) very well. I know he was in fact the Justice of the Peace at that time. I know his signature. And that's what this purports to be. And I do that to reinforce my earlier ruling with respect to this matter in chambers.

"Is there anything else?

"MR. REEVES: I have nothing to say.

"THE COURT: Okay."

Later the witness voluntarily slipped into his testimony that the vehicle striking the rear of appellants' vehicle in the Utah collision was going less than eight miles per hour though the court had sustained appellee counsel's objection that no adequate foundation had been laid. Appellee's counsel vigorously protested, objected and moved that the statement be stricken and the jury appropriately instructed to disregard. The trial judge again sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the volunteered answer. Counsel for appellants again tried to qualify the witness even though the witness had little information. Once again following voir dire by appellee's counsel and an objection that no proper foundation had been laid, the trial judge refused to admit evidence of the speed of the vehicle which ran into the rear of appellants' vehicle at the time of the Utah collision. No offer of proof was made by appellants' counsel.

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Springfield v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 21 d2 Setembro d2 1993
    ..."If there is no proper foundation laid, then expert testimony does not 'assist' the jury in the search for truth." Ferris v. Myers, 625 P.2d 199, 204 (Wyo.1981). If the procedures produce an unreliable result, then the court may exclude the evidence entirely. People v. Lipscomb, 215 Ill.App......
  • Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Curry
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 28 d5 Julho d5 1989
    ...an expert, like all other evidentiary rulings, is within the discretion of the trial court. Speed King, 675 P.2d at 1278; Ferris v. Meyers, 625 P.2d 199 (Wyo.1981); Elite Cleaners and Tailors, Inc. v. Gentry, 510 P.2d 784 (Wyo.1973). After the court has made its ruling to permit or not perm......
  • Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 15 d1 Março d1 1982
    ...judge and will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly and prejudicially erroneous and in extreme cases. Ferris v. Myers, Wyo., 625 P.2d 199 (1981). Here it was extremely prejudicial and erroneous. In a case such as this where on direct examination the qualifications of a......
  • Ely v. Kirk
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 12 d4 Setembro d4 1985
    ...Herman v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, Wyo., 675 P.2d 1271, 1278 (1984); Coronado Oil Company v. Grieves, supra; Ferris v. Myers, Wyo., 625 P.2d 199, 204 (1981). Opinion evidence usually involves hearsay. Rule 703, W.R.E., provides "The facts or data in the particular case upon which a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT