In E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Strong, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 574 (Miss. 2007), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded a $15.5 million jury award in a toxic tort case due to the trial court's erroneous admission of certain prejudicial, irrelevant and speculative evidence.

Ronald W. Eades, Professor of Law at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville, discusses those evidentiary rulings and provides related practice tips in this commentary.  According to Eades, "Counsel faced with similar evidentiary predictaments in the future can reduce their chances of reversal on appeal if they provide sufficient notice of their intent to introduce an unavailable declarant’s out-of-court statements at trial, and limit their expert’s testimony to opinions and conlcusions that are derived from the expert’s investigation and analysis of objective factors. Asking the expert to speculate as to why the defendant got away with something–or asking similar questions that invite speculation or generalizations–should be avoided."