## Facts

- Clarence O. Een suffered severe injuries in an automobile–truck collision and later proceeded as an incompetent person through representatives.
- The truck was driven by Dulski and owned by Consolidated Freightways.
- The central dispute was which lane the collision occurred in, determining which party crossed the center line and was negligent.
- Deputy sheriff John Holcomb, a former city policeman with over 17 years’ accident-investigation experience, arrived about 80 minutes after the collision.
- When Holcomb arrived, the vehicles had not been moved and the highway had not yet been reopened to traffic; he also returned to the scene the following morning.
- Based on his observations of physical conditions at the scene, Holcomb testified (over objection) that the impact occurred in the west lane (the truck’s lane).
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the court erred by admitting a law-enforcement officer’s expert opinion on the collision’s point of impact, where that fact strongly related to negligence and could be characterized as an ultimate issue.
2. Whether any asserted evidentiary error or the overall record justified granting a new trial.

## Decision

- The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.
- The court held Holcomb’s opinion testimony was properly admitted as expert opinion supported by adequate foundation and experience.
- The court concluded the testimony did not improperly decide the case for the jury; the jury remained free to accept or reject the opinion.
- The court found no prejudicial error warranting a new trial and left the defense verdict intact.

## Legal Principles

- A witness with specialized training or extensive experience in accident investigation may offer expert opinion based on personal observations of physical evidence, including an opinion on point of impact, if it assists the jury.
- Opinion testimony is not excluded merely because it bears on an ultimate fact; the key is whether it is helpful and grounded in observed facts rather than speculation.
- Delay in arriving at an accident scene affects the weight of an expert opinion (for jury evaluation) when the scene remained substantially unchanged; it does not necessarily require exclusion.
- A new trial is warranted only for prejudicial error or where the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or reflects a miscarriage of justice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission of an experienced officer’s expert opinion locating the point of impact from physical scene evidence and denied a new trial because the testimony was properly founded, did not usurp the jury’s function, and caused no prejudicial error.


Een v. Consolidated Freightways, 120 F. Supp. 289 (D.N.D. 1954)