Judge Sets Aside $3 Million Jury Verdict because Expert’s Testimony is Baseless


Recently, in Cross v. Spears, CL 12-436, a Martinsville Circuit Court judge set aside a $3 million dollar jury award and ordered a new trial based on a ruling that the plaintiff’s toxicologist’s opinion testimony was “totally lacking in scientific factual foundation.” 

After attending a NASCAR race in Martinsville, Virginia, the plaintiff, Cross, was struck by a vehicle while crossing a four-lane highway.  At trial, the defendant’s expert toxicologist offered a simple opinion, the plaintiff was drunk.  In support of his opinion the expert offered the results of the plaintiff’s blood work taken shortly after the accident.  The plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was .254, more than three times the legal limit for drivers in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

In response, the plaintiff presented his own expert toxicologist.  The plaintiff’s expert expressed the opinion that the plaintiff was not impaired and the accident was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s inebriation, or lack thereof.  The plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was based solely on the recollection and observations of the plaintiff’s companions who witnessed the accident and assured the expert that the plaintiff was not acting like he was intoxicated. 

After hearing all the evidence and the opinions of both experts, the jury returned a $3 million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiff.  The circuit court judge, however, immediately waived the proverbial black flag and set the verdict aside finding that the law requires expert opinions to be “based on science not speculation void of any scientific basis.”

The judge’s decision in Cross is encouraging for defense counsel because it shows that judges are willing to set aside verdicts that are based on speculative opinions from interested witnesses.  On the other hand, this case is worrisome because it highlights the reality that jurors often ignore facts and science in favor of less reliable (although maybe more impactful) testimony from witnesses.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sands Anderson PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Sands Anderson PC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.