 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lynn v. Jelinek8/23/2005
rt testimony and relevance." The trial court overruled Lynn's objections in this regard.
Lynn notes that in order to operate the fuel truck in question, one does not need a commercial driver's license. Lynn argues that the fact Grill is an experienced over-the-road truckdriver and owns and operates driving schools to both teach individuals how to drive over-the-road trucks and prepare them for commercial driver's license testing "makes him no more of an expert in this particular situation than any other individual member of the jury panel." Brief for appellant at 21. Lynn argues that Grill's area of expertise is not directly applicable to the situation at hand and that Grill's testimony added nothing that the jury was not capable of understanding on its own. Lynn notes that Grill did not "come to court with any recognized industry standards that would apply in this particular situation" or with "any federal or state statute, federal or state administrative ruling or regulation that specifies the types of actions people should take and what is reasonable." Brief for appellant at 24. It is true that the fuel truck in question does not require a person with a commercial driver's license to operate it and that Grill did not base his opinions on a particular industry standard or any statutory requirement; however, Grill is clearly an individual with considerable experience in operating various kinds of trucks and heavy machinery. Given Grill's experience, his opinions were undoubtedly of some assistance to the jury in understanding the evidence and determining the relative reasonableness of Lynn's and Burney's actions. The arguments raised by Lynn against admitting Grill's testimony go more to the weight of the testimony rather than the admissibility of such. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in overruling Lynn's various objections and in allowing Grill's expert testimony as identified above. Lynn's assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Lynn's various objections and allowing the testimony complained of by Lynn on appeal.
Affirmed.
Carlson, Judge, concurs
|