Case Title: Simpson v. Rood

Citation: 175 Vt. 546, 2003 VT 39, 830 A.2d 4

Docket Number: 2002-183

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Simpson v. Rood (2002-183); 175 Vt. 546; 830 A.2d 4

2003 VT 39

[Filed 31-Mar-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 39

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-183

                             JANUARY TERM, 2003

  Steven and Mary Ann Simpson	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Orange Superior Court
                                       }	
  Rodney Rood, Sr.	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 145-7-00 Oecv

                                                Trial Judge: Amy M. Davenport 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  This is an auto negligence case.  Plaintiffs Steven and Mary
  Ann Simpson appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendant Rodney Rood,
  Sr.  On appeal, the Simpsons claim that the trial court erred in improperly
  permitting Rood's cardiologist to testify by telephone.  We agree. 
  Therefore we reverse and remand. (FN1) 

       ¶  2.  The accident occurred just after 7:30 a.m. on January 29,
  2000.  Steven Simpson was driving his car east on Route 25.  Route 25 is a
  typical Vermont blacktop highway with a double centerline.  Simpson drove
  below the posted speed limit and wore his three-point seatbelt.  Simpson
  followed a line of three cars as he drove east toward the town of Bradford. 
  The car in front of Simpson suddenly swerved to the left-a large pickup
  truck was in his lane.  There was a guardrail to the right and no breakdown
  lane.  Simpson slammed on his brakes, and collided head-on with the pickup
  driven by Rood.   
     
       ¶  3.  The Simpsons brought a negligence action, alleging that Rood
  caused his truck to hit Steven Simpson's vehicle head-on, causing injury,
  pain, loss of consortium, and other damages related to the accident.  Rood
  asserted that there was no negligence on his part because the accident
  resulted from a sudden and unforeseeable episode of cough syncope that
  caused him to black out while driving.  Cough syncope can occur after a
  prolonged episode of coughing.  A combination of factors initiated by such
  a spell, including low blood pressure, low blood flow to the brain, and
  decreased heart rate, can result in loss of consciousness. (FN2)  
   
       ¶  4.  Rodney Rood is fifty years old.  He has a history of cardiac
  problems, including a heart attack and chronic angina.  Rood has undergone
  bypass surgery and other related procedures.  He has continually suffered
  painful residual symptoms from his heart attack eleven years ago.  After
  the accident, Rood told emergency room doctors, and his own long-term heart
  specialist, Dr. Nathaniel Niles, that he remembered taking a sip of his
  coffee, coughing, and then waking up after the collision.  He did not
  recall having any dizziness or angina immediately before the accident. 
  Based on this information, after eliminating a number of other diagnoses,
  Dr. Niles concluded that Rood's blackout was due to cough syncope, and that
  the episode could not have been anticipated.  Therefore, Dr. Niles's trial
  testimony regarding the diagnosis had  the potential to absolve Rood of
  liability-it went to the heart of the negligence issue. 

       ¶  5.  Both parties agreed in advance of trial to proceed with
  videotaped testimony by their respective doctor-witnesses.  The court
  scheduled the trial for April 4 and 11.  Although a great deal was made of
  the inability to schedule the videotaping of Dr. Niles due to conflicts in
  the attorneys' scheduling, Rood had significant advance knowledge that Dr.
  Niles's opinions were critical.  Nevertheless, Rood did not take sufficient
  steps to record the doctor's testimony.  At a status conference the day
  before the second trial date, with the testimony still unrecorded, Rood's
  counsel moved for a continuance.  The court denied his motion.  Thereafter,
  Rood's attorney arranged for issuance of a subpoena ordering Dr. Niles to
  appear the following day.   

       ¶  6.  The next day, Dr. Niles's attorney, appearing by telephone,
  moved to quash the subpoena citing unreasonable time for compliance and
  undue burden-the doctor had a full load of approximately twenty-five
  patients that day.  Dr. Niles's attorney offered to arrange for him to
  testify by telephone.  Over the Simpsons' objections, the court allowed Dr.
  Niles's telephone testimony.  Rood based his defense on Dr. Niles's opinion
  that the loss of consciousness resulted from cough syncope, and that the
  episode was both unforeseeable and unavoidable.  The jury returned its
  verdict for Rood later that day.   
   
       ¶  7.  The Simpsons argue on appeal, as they did below in their
  objection to Dr. Niles's testimony, that admission of telephonic testimony
  was reversible error.  We agree.  When the court quashed Dr. Niles's
  subpoena and admitted Dr. Niles's testimony in a form other than "orally in
  open court," as required by V.R.C.P. 43(a), it committed reversible error.

       ¶  8.  The Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure require that "[i]n all
  trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court,
  unless otherwise provided by these rules, the Vermont Rules of Evidence, or
  other rules adopted by the Supreme Court."  V.R.C.P. 43(a) (emphasis
  added).  Nowhere in the Rules of Evidence is the general requirement for
  testimony "orally in open court" abrogated to allow for testimony of an out
  of court witness-out of sight of the jury-either by telephone or by other
  means, in a civil trial of this sort under these circumstances.  "For
  testimony to be presented 'orally in open court,' the witness must be
  present in the courtroom."  Murphy v. Tivoli Enters., 953 F.2d 354, 359
  (8th Cir. 1992).  " '[O]rally in open court' means that a witness
  testifying in a case must be present in court so that the trier of fact may
  observe the demeanor of the witness."  In re Gust,