Mitchell v. Roy

Ten-year-old Darion Mitchell was injured when his bicycle was hit by a minivan being driven by Albert Roy (defendant). Darion’s mother, Delisa Mitchell (plaintiff), sued Roy to recover for Darion’s injuries. Mitchell claimed that Roy was speeding at the time of the collision. At a bench trial, Angela Dodd testified and opined about how fast Roy was traveling when he hit Darion. Dodd saw the collision from her front yard and estimated that Roy was traveling between 35 and 40 miles per hour, which was above the posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Dodd based her estimate on her experience operating her own vehicle at different rates of speed and on the fact that Roy’s minivan kicked up dust on the street. Roy objected to Dodd’s testimony, arguing that Dodd’s estimate was not rationally based on her perception and that Dodd could not have properly estimated Roy’s speed because she was observing his car from a seated, stationary position. Roy also claimed that Dodd’s testimony was unreliable because Dodd’s story about the collision contradicted testimony from a police investigator. The trial court overruled Roy’s objection and allowed the testimony. The court recognized that Dodd was not an expert in calculating speed and promised to consider her testimony only as a lay opinion. At the close of the trial, the court ruled in Mitchell’s favor, finding that Roy was 100 percent at fault for the collision because he was speeding at the time. The court stated that its conclusion was based primarily on Dodd’s testimony about Roy’s speed. Roy appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing Dodd to give lay opinion testimony.