Ingram v. McCuiston
134 S.E.2d 705, 261 N.C. 392 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hypothetical question posed to an expert witness is improper and constitutes prejudicial error if it is based on facts not in evidence, includes the opinion of another expert, contains irrelevant information, or is argumentative and slanted in favor of one party.
Facts:
- On March 16, 1961, Betty Pat Ingram was driving a Volkswagen while approximately three and a half months pregnant.
- Ingram came to a complete stop in a line of traffic on South Tryon Street in Charlotte, North Carolina.
- While stopped, Ingram's vehicle was struck from behind by a Dodge driven by Linda Lee McCuiston.
- The force of the impact pushed Ingram's Volkswagen forward, causing it to collide with the vehicle in front of her.
- As a result of the two impacts, Ingram's body was thrown backward and then forward, with her abdomen striking the steering wheel.
- Following the collision, Ingram suffered physical injuries to her neck, spine, and shoulders, as well as severe mental and emotional distress, including anxiety about her pregnancy.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Pat Ingram (plaintiff) filed a personal injury lawsuit against Linda Lee McCuiston (defendant) in a state trial court.
- During the trial, plaintiff's counsel posed a six-page hypothetical question to an expert witness, Dr. Miller.
- The defendants' counsel objected to the question.
- The trial court judge overruled the objection and permitted the expert to answer the question.
- Following a presumed verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appealed the trial court's ruling on the hypothetical question to the state's appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a hypothetical question posed to an expert witness legally improper if it includes facts not in evidence, is based on the opinion of another expert, contains irrelevant information, and is argumentative in nature?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharp, J.
Yes, such a hypothetical question is legally improper. A hypothetical question must be based only on facts in evidence, must not incorporate the opinion of another expert as a premise, should include only facts necessary for the expert to form an opinion, and must not be argumentative or unduly colored to favor one party. The six-page hypothetical question posed to Dr. Miller violated all four of these principles. First, it assumed facts not supported by evidence, such as the plaintiff's 'excellent' prior health, her 'suicidal tendencies,' and the extent of her spinal disability. Second, it improperly incorporated the diagnosis of another expert, Dr. Wright, rather than presenting his findings as an assumed fact. Third, it was cluttered with irrelevant details about the plaintiff's driving and medical bills that were not necessary for a medical opinion on causation. Finally, the question was argumentative and slanted, using loaded words like 'rammed,' 'excruciating pain and agony,' and 'crashed with tremendous force' to unfairly influence the jury.
Analysis:
This case provides a classic illustration of the rules governing, and the common abuses of, hypothetical questions for expert witnesses. The court's detailed dissection of the question serves as a strong cautionary guide for trial attorneys, emphasizing that such questions are for eliciting an expert opinion, not for summarizing a partisan narrative to the jury. By reversing the trial court, the opinion reinforces the trial judge's role as a gatekeeper responsible for ensuring that expert testimony is based on a proper, evidence-based foundation. This precedent solidifies the principle that an expert's opinion is worthless if the factual premises upon which it is built are flawed or improperly presented.
Unlock the full brief for Ingram v. McCuiston