## Facts

- M. Jayne Yellott was injured when her car collided with a pickup truck owned by Sabine Pools, Inc. and driven by its employee, David Bunch.
- Yellott sued Sabine Pools and its insurer, Underwriters Insurance Company; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company intervened.
- Yellott testified that she was traveling in the right lane of a highway, moved into the left lane to pass the pickup, and that Bunch then suddenly began a left turn and struck her vehicle.
- Bunch testified that he began a lawful left turn with his turn signal activated, and that Yellott was traveling about 90 miles per hour and failed to observe his signal.
- After the collision, Bunch and his passenger, Michael LeLeux, testified that they measured skid marks at the scene and identified a set of marks that they said belonged to Yellott’s car, running from the right lane into the left lane.
- Sabine Pools relied on Bunch’s and LeLeux’s skid-mark testimony to argue that Yellott did not enter the left lane until after Bunch had already started turning.
- Trooper Ronald Mann investigated the accident and testified that the skid marks attributable to Yellott’s vehicle were entirely in the left lane, which supported Yellott’s account.
- Mann also testified, based on his interpretation of the skid marks, that Yellott was traveling about 70 miles per hour (not 90), and that he issued a citation to Bunch because he believed the physical evidence showed Bunch caused the collision.
- A jury allocated fault equally between the drivers (50% to Yellott and 50% to Bunch/Sabine Pools) and awarded Yellott special damages, including $10,000 for past lost earnings and $90,000 for medical expenses, but awarded nothing for general damages or loss of future earning capacity.
- Yellott appealed, challenging fault and the denial of general damages and future earning capacity; Sabine Pools answered the appeal, seeking a higher fault allocation to Yellott and reductions to the damage awards. Both sides also argued that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings on lay opinion testimony required a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed legal error by admitting lay opinion testimony from Bunch and LeLeux interpreting skid marks to reconstruct the collision and vehicle positions.
2. Whether the trial court committed legal error by admitting Trooper Mann’s lay opinions interpreting skid marks, estimating Yellott’s speed, and linking those conclusions to fault (including his citation decision).
3. If legal error occurred and affected the jury’s fact-finding, whether the appellate court should conduct a de novo review and, based on that review, how fault and damages should be set.

## Decision

- The court held the trial court committed legal error by allowing certain lay opinion testimony from Bunch and LeLeux that went beyond simple on-scene observations and amounted to accident reconstruction based on skid-mark interpretation.
- The court held the trial court also committed legal error by allowing Trooper Mann to give lay opinions interpreting skid marks and estimating speed and fault in a manner requiring specialized foundations.
- Because the improper opinions were prejudicial and interfered with the jury’s fact-finding, the court conducted a de novo review of the record rather than remanding for a new trial.
- On de novo review, the court amended the judgment’s damage awards, including:
  - awarding $100,000 in general damages;
  - awarding $181,694 for loss of future earning capacity;
  - increasing past lost earnings to $23,189; and
  - reducing medical-expense damages to $34,500.
- The judgment was amended and otherwise affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Under La. C.E. art. 701, lay opinion testimony must be based on the witness’s own perceptions and be helpful to the factfinder; it may not function as technical accident reconstruction.
- Lay witnesses may describe what they saw and measured at an accident scene, but opinions identifying which skid marks came from a particular vehicle and what that means for vehicle movement and point of impact may require more than ordinary observation.
- An investigating officer’s conclusions about speed from skid marks and causal fault may cross from lay testimony into reconstruction requiring proper qualifications and foundations.
- When erroneous evidentiary rulings are legal error that affects the fact-finding process and results in prejudice, an appellate court may disregard the tainted findings and review the record de novo to render judgment.
- On de novo review, the appellate court may reassess fault and independently set damages supported by the record, including adding categories of damages the jury denied and adjusting amounts awarded.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Third Circuit found prejudicial legal error in the admission of lay opinions from the driver, a passenger, and the investigating trooper concerning skid-mark interpretation, speed, and fault, conducted a de novo review, and amended the judgment to add general damages and loss of future earning capacity while adjusting special damages, affirming the judgment as modified.


Yellott v. Underwriters Insurance Co., 915 So. 2d 917 (2005)