See also: EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS; SPEED

1.  Expert Testimony Generally

Courts have generally been less receptive to expert testimony reconstructing accidents than to other forms of expert testimony.{footnote}  E.g., Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. v. The Grove Mfg. Co., 958 F.2d 1169, 1174-75 (1st Cir. 1992) (“In a field like accident reconstruction that is more art than science, the trial judge has particular liberty to eschew ‘professional witnesses.'”){/footnote}
Whether to admit expert testimony reconstructing an accident is generally a matter for the trial court’s discretion.  Such testimony has been held admissible in a number of cases.{footnote}E.g., Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253, 1257 (8th Cir. 1990); Werth v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd., 950 F.2d 643, 650 (10th Cir. 1991) (expert need not have conducted independent testing).
 Couch v. City of D’Iberville, 656 So.2d 146,152 (Miss. 1995); Van Scooter v. 450 Trabold Road, Inc., 616 N.Y.S.2d 129, 130 (1994) (trial court erred in excluding expert’s opinion that lack of bumper on defendant’s truck contributed to plaintiff’s injuries); Ohio v. Garland, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5660 (Ohio App. 1996).{/footnote}  It has been held that such evidence will be excluded where there is eyewitness testimony available,{footnote}CHECK Campbell v. Clark, 283 F.2d 766, 770 (10th Cir. 1960).
See also Lollis v. Superior Sales Co., 580 P.2d 423, 428 (Kan. 1978) (expert testimony particularly helpful where there are no eyewitnesses).{/footnote} unless the testimony is necessary to explain scientific priciples to the jury and enable it to make factual determinations.{footnote}Watkins v. Schmitt, 665 N.E.2d 1379, 1386 (Ill. 1996) (holding that speed is not matter beyond the ken of the average juror).{/footnote}

2.  Testimony of Police Officer

It has been held proper to permit a police officer who has investigated an accident to give an expert opinion as to the cause of the accident, and which party was at fault,{footnote}Koziol v. Vojvoda, 662 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. App. 1996).{/footnote} where the officer is experienced in the investigation and reconstruction of accidents.{footnote}Simmons v. Chicago and Northwestern Transp. Co., 993 F.2d 1326, 1327-28 (8th Cir. 1993) (court found that accident uncomplicated, and testimony corroborated by other witnesses).
Laws v. Webb, 658 A.2d 1000, 1010 (Del. 1995); Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. App. 1994), reh’g denied, trans. denied; Couch v. City of D’Iberville, 656 So.2d 146,153 (Miss. 1995); Hislop v. Cady, 862 P.2d 388, 392 (Mont. 1993); Madrid v. Robinson, 931 P.2d 791 (Ore. 1997).
But see Faries v. Atlas Truck Body Mfg. Co., 797 F.2d 619, 623 (8th Cir. 1986) (opinion inadmissible due to insufficient factual basis); Goren v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 688 A.2d 941 (Md. App. 1997) (opinion excluded where officer lacked expertise to reconstruct circumstances); Billiter v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc., 420 S.E.2d 286, 291 (W. Va. 1992) (opinion properly excluded where foundation for officer’s qulaifications insufficient).{/footnote}  Other courts have held it to be error to permit a police officer who did not witiness the accident first-hand to testify as to the cause of an automobile accident,{footnote}Johnson v. Lynch, 574 A.2d 934, 939 (N.H. 1990); Van Scooter v. 450 Trabold Road, Inc., 616 N.Y.S.2d 129, 130 (1994) (officer erroneously allowed to testify that his report described cause as “inattention”).
            {/footnote} the party at fault for an accident{footnote}Johnson v. Lynch, 574 A.2d 934, 939 (N.H. 1990).
{/footnote} or the speed of an automobile involved (see SPEED).