Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Redman v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureExpert testimonyJury instructionsAdmissibility of evidenceRule 702expert witnesstrial court discretionlaw enforcement expert testimony

Facts

Mr. Redman alleged the railway company negligently failed to recognize and correct an unusually hazardous crossing where trees and brush obstructed visibility and where lights should have been installed or requested. At trial, Mr. Redman's accident reconstruction expert testified that average reaction time was one and a half seconds. In rebuttal, the railway offered State Trooper Larry Kirk, who investigated the accident and, after questioning about his training and experience, was permitted to testify that normal driver reaction time is three-quarters of a second. The railway also presented Mike Selig of the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department, who testified that the crossing ranked as a low priority for safety upgrades; the jury found neither Mrs. Redman nor the railway negligent.

Issue

Did the trial court err by allowing Trooper Kirk to testify about normal motorist reaction time without a formal declaration that he was an expert, by allowing Selig to testify that the crossing had a low priority for upgrade, and by giving a non-AMI jury instruction on expert witnesses?

Rule

Under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 702, a witness may give expert testimony if qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, and qualification is left to the trial court's discretion. Deficiencies in an expert's ability to explain related concepts generally go to weight and credibility rather than admissibility. A formal statement qualifying a witness as an expert is not required where the record shows the trial court implicitly made that determination. A non-AMI instruction may properly be given when no relevant AMI instruction exists and the appellant does not show the instruction was incorrect or prejudicial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence trial in Little Rock, Dana Mercer claims a delivery van struck her after the driver failed to brake in time. The defense calls Officer Neil Porter, who has completed police academy training, attended several crash-investigation seminars, and investigated more than 200 collisions, to testify about ordinary braking-response time for drivers.

Dana objects that Officer Porter lacks the extensive scientific credentials of an accident-reconstruction engineer. How should the trial court most likely rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, Rule 702 permits expert testimony from a witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, and the trial court has broad discretion in making that determination. The court specifically approved limited expert testimony from a law-enforcement officer based on training and accident-investigation experience, even if the officer's credentials were less extensive than those of other experts.