 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Condon v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Company11/5/2002
ion, Officer Riederer acknowledged that he never performed any type of calculation regarding the impact speed and severity of injury in the instant case. Officer Riederer also acknowledged that his testimony in this area was merely a recitation of statistics from a book he had reviewed a week prior to the trial.
. Heritage contends that Officer Riederer lacked the sufficient background and requisite knowledge to testify about the relationship between impact speed and severity of injury . While we agree that the Condons failed to establish a proper foundation for Officer Riederer to offer expert testimony in this area, we conclude that the admission of his testimony was harmless error.
. "The admissibility of evidence is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the trial court's decision to allow the admission of evidence if there is a reasonable basis for the decision and it was made in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record." State v. Brewer, 195 Wis. 2d 295, 305, 536 N.W.2d 406 (Ct. App. 1995) (citation omitted). The admissibility of expert opinion testimony is assessed in light of Wis. Stat. § 907.02. See id. Wisconsin Stat. § 907.02 states: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
. Whether expert testimony assists the fact finder is a discretionary decision of the trial court. See Brewer, 195 Wis. 2d at 305. Further, the expert witness's area of competency, i.e., whether a witness possesses sufficient knowledge to qualify as an expert, is generally within the discretion of the trial court. See Potter v. Schleck, 9 Wis. 2d 12, 19, 100 N.W.2d 559 (1960). Here, we conclude that Officer Riederer lacked the specific knowledge to give statistical testimony relating impact speed and the severity of injury .
. "The qualifications of a witness should relate to his or her background, education, and experience rather than a label as to a profession or trade." Leahy by Heft v. Kenosha Mem'l Hosp., 118 Wis. 2d 441, 453, 348 N.W.2d 607 (Ct. App. 1984). Therefore, " hether a witness `is qualified to give an opinion depends upon whether he or she has superior knowledge in the area in which the precise question lies.'" State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, , 252 Wis. 2d 499, 643 N.W.2d 777 (citation omitted).
. Officer Riederer was only qualified as an expert witness in the field of accident reconstruction. This would allow him to offer expert testimony regarding point of impact, vehicle speed, braking distance, and other physical aspects of the accident. However, nothing in the record establishes Officer Riederer was ever trained in the field of statistical analysis. Rather, Officer Riederer testified that he gained his knowledge regarding the statistical relationship in question from a book that he read the week before the trial. Because the Condons failed to either establish that this book was part of some type of formal statistical training or provide the book to the court and Heritage for its review, we conclude that they failed to establish a proper foundation for the statistical testimony.
. However, " n erroneous exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence does not necessarily lead to a new trial." Martindale, 2001 WI 113 at . In Martindale, our supreme court explained the interplay of Wis. Stat. §§ 805.18 and 901.03 in a harmless error analysis:
The appellate court must conduct a har
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|