Negligence claim for debris ejected from a lawnmower; Exclusion of parts of an expert’s testimony; MRE 702; People v Lemons

Holding “that the trial court correctly discharged its duty as gatekeeper of the expert’s testimony” when it excluded parts of the testimony, the court affirmed the order entered on the jury’s verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against defendant, a landscaping business, after he was struck by “debris ejected from defendant’s lawnmower” in a park. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in excluding parts of his expert’s (G) testimony as to “whether the incident occurred, the cause of the alleged incident, and any subject deemed scientific in nature.” The court disagreed. While the trial court ruled that G “could testify as a person with specialized knowledge in the field of lawn care,” plaintiff wanted to introduce testimony from G “that debris from the mower struck plaintiff, and that the only way that could occur was if defendant had been negligent. The trial court observed that that testimony would require an accident reconstructionist with knowledge of the scientific bases regarding projectiles.” The court concluded that for G to give an opinion as to “causation and negligence would require [G] to rely on scientific expertise he does not possess. Because [G] was not qualified as a scientific expert, and because there was no demonstration of underlying scientific principles supporting his conclusions regarding causation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a portion of [G’s] testimony, and plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial.” The court further found that the record supported “the jury’s finding of no cause of action even apart from the issue of” G’s testimony. “A reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiff’s testimony lacked credibility and was unpersuasive that the condition of his left ear was caused by an event on [5/6/21]. He testified that on that day, he suddenly found himself lying on the ground in the park after apparently being hit in the left side of the head.” But witness-S “testified that he heard the mower hit a stick, but did not see anything hit plaintiff, plaintiff did not appear to be injured, and [he] remained at the meeting for another 30 minutes without leaving or seeking medical care.” The court also noted that plaintiff and his mother testified that he injured his ear in late 2020, underwent unsuccessful surgery on his left ear in 3/21, “and that his medical condition was still unresolved on the day of the incident.”