A jury trial was held to determine whether Mr. Richey was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the policy.

He testified that, on the day of the accident, he was returning home on his motorcycle after visiting a relative. He said that, as he approached a bend in the highway, an unknown driver (referred to by the parties as the “phantom vehicle”) travelling in the opposite direction swerved into his lane. He stated that he either could have driven off the road or hit the oncoming car head-on. He said that he swerved or steered his motorcycle to the right to avoid the other vehicle and, upon leaving the road, he crashed into a ditch, sustaining serious injuries.

Mr. Richey testified that the driver of the other vehicle left the scene.

The area of the accident was about 40 to 50 yards past the start of the curve. His motorcycle left tire marks where the motorcycle exited the road close to where the curve started.

Jeremy Jones, a deputy with the local sheriff's department, found Mr. Richey lying unconscious partially in the roadway. Deputy Jones called 911, secured Mr. Richey's neck to ensure he did not injure himself further, and waited for paramedics to arrive. He was transported from the scene by paramedics, and then was airlifted by helicopter to a hospital in Springfield, Missouri. Mr. Richey remained there in a coma for approximately three weeks.

Mr. Richey was charged with the class A misdemeanor of careless and imprudent driving as a result of the accident. The charge specifically stated that he drove off the roadway and struck a ditch, thereby endangering the property of another or the life and limb of any person. He also was charged with having an improper license.

Mr. Richey pleaded guilty to the charge of careless and imprudent driving but not guilty to the charge of driving with an improper license. He claimed that he pleaded guilty to the charge of careless and imprudent driving because it would have been too expensive to hire an attorney to contest the charge, although he admitted he was not afraid to defend himself on the charge of having an of improper license.

State Farm presented an alternative theory of the case, positing there was no other driver and that Mr. Richey had run off the highway due to his own inattention. State Farm relied on testimony from Corporal Todd Hadlock. At the time of the trial, Corporal Hadlock had been with the Missouri Highway Patrol for 19 years, had taken classes involving the investigation of accidents, and had investigated approximately 1,500 accidents. Corporal Hadlock was noticed up as an expert witness in accident reconstruction, but did not perform an accident reconstruction in this instance.

Corporal Hadlock testified as to his observations of the scene and as to his opinion regarding the circumstances of the accident. He testified as follows. There was a skid mark 177 feet in length at the scene of the accident in a ditch and a divot that had been taken out by the motorcycle. From the skid mark, it appeared Mr. Richey had entered the curve and gradually left the road. Had Mr. Richey swerved, Corporal Hadlock stated, he would have expected to see a “yaw” mark or brake mark on the road, but there was no evidence of this at the scene. From the evidence, it appeared the motorcycle had left the roadway in a straight line. Corporal Hadlock stated he found no evidence that another vehicle had forced Mr. Richey off the road. It was Corporal Hadlock's opinion that Mr. Richey had been inattentive at the time of the crash.

The case was submitted to the jury, which entered a verdict in favor of State Farm. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.

Mr. Richey appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred by allowing Corporal Hadlock to testify as to his opinion on the accident's causation.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court had erred by admitting the portion of Corporal Hadlock's testimony in which he opined that the accident had been caused solely by Mr. Richey's inattentive driving.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that Missouri courts have uniformly held that a police officer, especially if he or she had not witnessed the accident, may not offer an opinion as to the fault of a party to the accident. The appellate court said that this was because a jury likely would give “undue weight to an officer's assessment of fault in a traffic accident.” The appellate court added that this rule applied regardless of whether the officer was testifying as an expert witness or not.

Here, the appellate court said, Corporal Hadlock was noticed up as an expert in accident reconstruction, although he had not performed a reconstruction in this case. In his videotaped deposition, which was played to the jury at trial, the following exchange occurred:

Q: [D]id you reach any conclusion, to a reasonable degree of certainty, accident investigation certainty, as to what occurred out there at the accident scene?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Okay.

Q: Okay. Based upon what you saw in your investigation, what was your opinion you reached that day?

A: My opinion was that [Mr. Richey] was just inattentive to the roadway condition at the time of the crash.

In the appellate court's view, this line of questioning “amounted to improper opinion evidence that there was no other vehicle that ran [Mr. Richey] off the road, that this was a one-vehicle crash that involved only [Mr. Richey's] motorcycle, and that the sole cause of the crash was [Mr. Richey's] inattentive driving.”

The appellate court declared that Corporal Hadlock's opinions and conclusions “were not fact testimony of what he personally observed at the scene.” It added that an expert witness' testimony should not be admitted unless it was “clear” that the jurors themselves were not capable of drawing correct conclusions from the facts. The appellate court pointed out, however, that “[i]n this era of widespread highway travel and numerous highway collisions, a jury, usually composed of adult drivers for the most part, is capable of reaching its own conclusions with regard to fault and degree of fault in a case of this type.”

The appellate court concluded that Corporal Hadlock's testimony in which he opined the accident was caused solely by Mr. Richey's inattentive driving was inadmissible, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it, and the testimony materially affected the outcome of the trial.

The case is Richey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., No. ED 101584 (Mo. Ct.App. Feb. 2, 2016).