With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reversed and remanded cases in which the trial court erroneously included or excluded expert testimony. Indeed, this Court, in McLe-more, the foremost Mississippi case adopting the modified Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert witness testimony, reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court had erred by admitting the expert testimony of an appraisal witness. McLemore, 863 So.2d at 43. See Giannaris v. Giannaris, 960 So.2d 462, 471 (Miss.2007) (determining, based on modified Daubert analysis, that the “trial court erred in granting any weight to [the expert’s] testimony, as it lacked sufficient reliability under Miss. R. Evid. 702” and the admission of the testimony “amounted to an abuse of discretion”); Brown v. Mladineo, 504 So.2d 1201 (Miss.1987) (<HOLDING>). See also Int’l Paper Co. v. Townsend, 961

A: holding that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony regarding the safe and proper way to install tether ball equipment in a negligence action
B: holding that trial court erred in excluding material testimony when court misapprehended partys awareness of witness
C: holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony
D: holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor
D.