## Facts

- Phyllis G. Scott and Rebecca L. Yates were involved in a head-on collision on a two-lane road in Pickaway County, Ohio, on January 30, 1991.
- Each driver claimed the other crossed the center line immediately before impact.
- Harold Scott, Phyllis Scott’s husband and passenger, died from injuries sustained in the collision.
- Phyllis Scott sued Yates individually and as administrator of Harold Scott’s estate, alleging Yates negligently crossed the center line and caused the crash.
- Deputy Alan E. Hawkins investigated the crash scene as a routine accident investigator.
- Hawkins had a high school education, police-academy accident-investigation training, and experience investigating many crashes, but he stated he was not an accident reconstructionist.
- Hawkins lacked scientific training in reconstruction concepts such as conservation of momentum, speed calculations, and the effects of speed on post-impact vehicle movement.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under former Ohio Evid.R. 702 by qualifying the investigating officer as an expert and permitting him to opine which driver caused the collision.
2. Whether an officer’s accident-investigation experience, without reconstruction training or scientific methodology, is sufficient to support opinion testimony on point of impact and fault.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment for Yates and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Hawkins to testify as an expert that Scott caused the collision.
- The court distinguished permissible investigative testimony (observations and data collection) from accident-reconstruction opinions that require specialized scientific or technical knowledge.
- Because Hawkins’s qualifications did not match the scientific nature of causation/point-of-impact opinions, his fault testimony exceeded his scope of expertise and should not have been admitted.

## Legal Principles

- Under former Ohio Evid.R. 702, expert opinion testimony is admissible only when the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education on the subject of the opinion and the testimony will assist the trier of fact.
- Evid.R. 104(A) requires the trial court to make a threshold determination that the witness’s qualifications fit the specific expert opinions offered.
- Accident investigation (collecting and recording facts at the scene) is distinct from accident reconstruction (drawing inferences using scientific methodology from investigative data).
- An investigating officer may testify to observations and recorded measurements, but may not attribute fault or determine point of impact through reconstruction-level inference without sufficient specialized training and methodology.
- A trial court abuses its discretion when it admits expert causation testimony from a witness whose background does not support the scientific or technical conclusions offered.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial after finding that the admission of an investigating officer’s expert opinion assigning fault—without adequate reconstruction training or scientific foundation—was an abuse of discretion under Ohio’s expert-testimony rules.


Scott v. Yates, 643 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio 1994)