Case Title: LESTER E. CASE V. OUTBACK PIPE HAULERS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 06-206

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
LESTER E. CASE V. OUTBACK PIPE HAULERS2007 WY 181171 P.3d 514Case Number: 06-206Decided: 11/14/2007
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 

LESTER 
E. CASE,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.OUTBACK PIPE 
HAULERS,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from theDistrictCourtofCampbellCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Nicholas 
H. Carter of Carter Law Office, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming; Jeremy D. Michaels of 
Michaels & Michaels, Gillette, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

John A. 
Coppede and Richard D. Bush of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 

KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Outback Pipe 
Haulers (Outback) delivered a load of well casing to a methane drilling site 
where Lester Case was working.  As 
the workers were unloading the casing, the load shifted and the casing 
unexpectedly rolled off the trailer, striking Mr. Case and causing serious 
injuries to his legs.  

 
 
[¶2]  Mr. Case sued Outback for 
negligence.  At trial, Mr. Case 
sought to amend his complaint to name Brad Coltrane, Outback's owner, as a 
defendant.  The trial court allowed 
the amendment and continued the trial to give Outback time to prepare to defend 
the claim against Mr. Coltrane.  
When the trial resumed, Outback presented a new expert witness to show 
Mr. Coltrane was not negligent.  Mr. 
Case sought to introduce a rebuttal witness to challenge the expert's 
testimony.  The district court 
disallowed the rebuttal evidence.  
Mr. Case contends on appeal to this Court that the district court erred 
in excluding the rebuttal witness.  
Because Mr. Case did not object to the district court's ruling and our 
review is limited to determining whether plain error occurred, we affirm.  

 
 

ISSUE

 
 
[¶3]      The following 
issue is determinative of Mr. Case's appeal:

 
 
            
Did plain error occur when the district court precluded Mr. Case from 
calling a rebuttal witness after allowing Outback time to prepare and present 
additional evidence in response to the amended complaint?

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      On December 18, 
2001, Mr. Case was working for Nucor Drilling as a driller on a methane 
rig.  That morning, Outback, a sole 
proprietorship hired by Nucor to deliver well casing to the rig, delivered a 
load of fifteen joints of casing to the drilling site.  Brad Coltrane, the sole proprietor of 
Outback, positioned the trailer slightly uphill from the drilling rig.  Mr. Coltrane, his employee Daryl 
Robison, Mr. Case and his sons, Randy and Kevin Case, began unloading the 
casing.  

 
 
[¶5]      The men dropped 
the first joint off the trailer.  It 
rolled down the hill, coming to rest near the drilling rig.  Mr. Coltrane and Mr. Robison secured the 
remaining load on the trailer with stake pins1 and, along with Mr. Case and his 
sons, went down to the rig and moved the joint to a more appropriate spot.  Mr. Coltrane and Mr. Robison then 
released another joint, which also came to rest near the drilling rig.  As before, they secured the load and the 
men repositioned the second joint.  
They unloaded a third joint, which followed the same path as the previous 
joints.  Before Mr. Coltrane and Mr. 
Robison could secure the remaining casing on the trailer, however, the entire 
load shifted and the casing rolled off the trailer.  Mr. Case was already on his way down to 
re-position the joint and was hit by the load as it rolled down to the 
platform.  He sustained serious 
injuries to both legs.  

 
 
[¶6]      Mr. Case filed a 
negligence action against Outback under various employer/employee theories of 
liability.  At trial, after Outback 
had rested its case, Mr. Case moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the 
evidence as provided by W.R.C.P. 15(b).2  Specifically, in conformity with the 
evidence presented at trial he sought to add a separate negligence claim against 
Mr. Coltrane as sole proprietor of Outback.  Over Outback's objection, the district 
court granted the motion to amend.  
However, in order to avoid potential prejudice to Outback, the district 
court continued the trial for two weeks to allow Outback time to identify and 
present additional evidence in defense of the claim.  The district court advised the parties 
that, in accordance with its reading of W.R.C.P. 15(b), only Outback would be 
permitted to put on additional evidence when the trial reconvened.  Mr. Case did not object to this 
procedure.3  

 
 
[¶7]      When the trial 
reconvened, the district court learned that Mr. Case had subpoenaed Mr. Robison, 
now a former employee of Outback, to testify as a rebuttal witness.   The court reminded Mr. Case of its 
earlier ruling, prohibited him from calling Mr. Robison and released Mr. Robison 
from the subpoena.  Mr. Case did not 
object.  

 
 
[¶8]      Outback then 
called its new expert witness, Dr. Richard Baratta, who testified, based on his 
reconstruction of the accident, that Mr. Coltrane could not have prevented the 
remaining well casing from falling off the trailer.  With his testimony, Dr. Baratta showed 
the jury a computer animation which depicted no more than five seconds elapsing 
between the time the third joint was released and the remaining casing 
fell.  During cross-examination, Dr. 
Baratta testified that he discounted Mr. Robison's deposition testimony 
estimating the time lapse to be approximately one to two minutes.  

 
 
[¶9]      Based on the 
court's prior ruling, Mr. Case did not call Mr. Robison to rebut Dr. Baratta's 
testimony.  Dr. Baratta was the 
final witness in the case.  The jury 
returned a verdict finding that Mr. Case did not meet his burden of proving that 
Outback was negligent and that its negligence proximately caused his 
injuries.    

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶10]   Mr. Case challenges the district 
court's refusal to allow Mr. Robison's rebuttal testimony.  He asserts that the district court's 
ruling constituted an abuse of discretion.  
Because Mr. Case did not object to the district court's ruling, however, 
our review is not for abuse of discretion but is limited instead to determining 
whether plain error occurred.   W.R.A.P. 9.05.  Plain error exists if the error: 1) 
clearly appears in the record; 2) transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of 
law; and, 3) resulted in material prejudice to a substantial right.  Landsiedel v.   Buffalo Properties, LLC, 2005 WY 61, ¶ 17, 
112 P.3d 610, 615 (Wyo. 2005). The burden of establishing plain error is on the 
party alleging error.  

 
 
[¶11]  The Wyoming Rules of Evidence vest 
considerable discretion in the district courts to determine whether to allow the 
presentation of particular evidence.  McCabe v. R. A. Manning Constr. Co., 
Inc., 674 P.2d 699, 712 (Wyo. 1983).  W.R.E. 611 provides that "[t]he court 
shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating 
witnesses and presenting evidence."  
We have said that such discretion is necessary to an efficient and 
orderly trial process.  Id. at 712.  

 
 
[¶12]  In Hall v. Hall, 708 P.2d 416, 422 (Wyo. 
1985), a custody proceeding, the district court ruled in the middle of trial 
that the mother would be allowed to present only one rebuttal witness.  She objected but the court adhered to 
its ruling.  On appeal, we held the 
court erred in limiting the mother to one rebuttal witness, but that the error 
was harmless because she failed to show the district court what her other 
rebuttal witness would have said in rebuttal that he had not said 
previously.  

 
 
[¶13]  Similarly, in Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Curry, 778 P.2d 1083 (Wyo. 
1989), we found no abuse of discretion by the district court in precluding 
certain testimony.  We said, "The 
rulings of trial courts on these matters are given considerable deference and 
will not be reversed as long as some legitimate basis for the ruling is 
found."  Id. at 
1101.   Particularly when, as 
in Stauffer, the party seeking to 
present the testimony did not offer an adequate foundation establishing the need 
for the evidence, we have not found error in the exclusion of the 
evidence.

 
 
 [¶14]  Here, Mr. Case did not object to the 
ruling precluding him from calling Mr. Robison to testify as a rebuttal 
witness.  He also did not ask to 
make a formal offer of proof showing why Mr. Robison's testimony was important, 
why he was not called to testify in plaintiff's case-in chief or why the use of 
his deposition testimony in cross-examining Dr. Baratta was not sufficient.   Given the district court's broad 
discretion in deciding whether to allow evidence, Mr. Case cannot show the 
decision to preclude Mr. Robison's testimony transgressed any clear and 
unequivocal rule of law.  Thus, he 
cannot show plain error.   

 
 
[¶15]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Stake pins 
are large metal stakes that are placed in slots on the trailer to prevent the 
casing from falling off the trailer.

  

2Rule 15(b) 
states:

 
 
When issues 
not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the 
parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the 
pleadings.  Such amendment of the 
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to 
raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after 
judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of 
these issues.  If evidence is 
objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by 
the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so 
freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved 
thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of 
such evidence would prejudice the party in maintaining the party's action or 
defense upon the merits.  The court 
may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such 
evidence.

 
 

3Given Mr. 
Case's failure to object, the issue of whether the district court's 
interpretation of Rule 15(b) was reasonable is not before us.  However, we note nothing in the language of Rule 15(b) prohibits the 
amending party from presenting evidence to rebut evidence presented by the 
objecting party after a continuance is granted under the 
rule.