 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
New v. Titan Tire Corp.8/29/2001
>
Iowa Rule of Evidence 702 provides as follows:
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. Iowa R. Evid. 702.
" f an expert makes some flawed assumptions in testifying, that fact goes to the weight to be given the opinion, not to its admissibility." Olson v. Nieman's, Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299, 309 (Iowa 1998). The weight and credibility of testimony are matters for the jury. Oak Leaf Country Club, Inc. v. Wilson, 257 N.W.2d 739, 747 (Iowa 1977). The rule applies even though there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of a particular witness. Id.
Dr. Newkirk testified at trial concerning Mark's past and future loss of income. In reaching his conclusions, he relied upon Mark's tax returns, his 1999 W-2, and information from Lisa regarding Mark's recent employment. He also relied upon economic data from Iowa and Arkansas. In his final written report, Dr. Newkirk estimated Mark's future loss of income at between $261,488 and $425,202. During his testimony, Dr. Newkirk explained the figures in his written report were based on Iowa data. After the completion of his final report, he examined data for the State of Arkansas and determined tractor-trailer operators in Iowa make approximately two dollars an hour more than those in Arkansas. Therefore, Dr. Newkirk estimated his original projections of future loss of income, based on Iowa data, should be lowered to between $171,488 and $317,202 to reflect the Arkansas data. The jury awarded Mark $100,000 for future loss of income.
Titan Tire contends the court erred by allowing Dr. Newkirk to testify as to future loss of income based upon Iowa earnings data. It argues the testimony had no basis in fact because Mark New never resided in Iowa. Moreover, it claims Titan Tire was prejudiced because the jury heard and was allowed to consider a much higher damage figure with no factual basis. We disagree.
Dr. Newkirk clearly explained during his testimony the necessity of reducing the figures in his report to account for wage differences between tractor-trailer drivers in Iowa and Arkansas. He gave specific figures and provided those numbers to the jury. Dr. Newkirk's opinions were subject to cross-examination by Titan Tire . Titan Tire did not offer its own expert testimony. Titan Tire's objections at trial went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Moreover, Titan Tire has failed to show prejudice by the admission of Dr. Newkirk's testimony. The jury awarded Mark $100,000 for future loss of income, a figure substantially lower than all of Dr. Newkirk's projections. The district court did not err in admitting Dr. Newkirk's testimony.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|