## Facts

- A 10-year-old bicyclist, Russell Jordan, collided with a 1968 Fiat driven by Wayne R. Bero and owned by Linda L. Bero on a state highway in Mason County, West Virginia (May 29, 1969).
- Russell suffered serious injuries, including evidence of significant brain injury with alleged long-term cognitive and behavioral effects.
- Russell (by his father and next friend) sought damages for personal injuries, including permanent injury and future effects; the father, Norman D. Jordan, sought derivative damages.
- An investigating police officer who did not witness the collision testified, based on physical observations at the scene, to the collision location and points of impact.
- A jury awarded $20,000 to Russell and $6,000 to Norman; the trial court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.
- The defendants appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, instructions, and the damages awards.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly admitted opinion testimony from a non-eyewitness investigating police officer about the collision location and impact points.
2. Whether the medical evidence established permanent injury and future effects with reasonable certainty sufficient to submit those elements to the jury.
3. Whether the father’s verdict improperly included damage elements recoverable only by the injured minor.

## Decision

- The court affirmed admission of the investigating officer’s opinion testimony, finding it permissible in the trial court’s discretion when based on observed physical facts and helpful to the jury.
- The court held the medical evidence sufficiently supported instructions and recovery for permanent injury and future consequences because the evidence showed reasonable certainty or probability, not mere possibility.
- The court affirmed the child’s judgment.
- The court affirmed the father’s judgment only upon remittitur, concluding the father’s award included improper elements belonging to the child’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- Opinion evidence is generally excluded on matters within common understanding, but may be admitted in the trial court’s discretion when it aids the jury and rests on an adequate factual basis.
- A non-eyewitness investigating officer may give reconstructive opinion testimony about accident location and impact points when grounded in firsthand observations of physical evidence.
- Future and permanent injury damages require proof of reasonable certainty or probability; absolute certainty is not required, but speculation is insufficient.
- In a minor’s injury case, the child may recover for personal injury elements (including pain, suffering, and permanent impairment), while the parent’s derivative claim is limited to the parent’s recoverable pecuniary losses (such as medical expenses and loss of services), and verdicts must not mix these categories.

## Conclusion

The court sustained liability and the child’s future-damages recovery, approving discretionary admission of fact-based police reconstruction testimony and requiring only reasonable medical certainty for permanency; it reduced the father’s award through remittitur because it included damage elements legally belonging to the injured minor.


Jordan v. Bero, 210 S.E.2d 618 (W. Va. 1974)