Opinion ID: 1489448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-Examination as to Compensation

Text: This issue was not even addressed, much less preserved by objection, at trial. Appellants admit that they did not raise the issue of expert compensation and justify this failure because, at the time of trial, Kentucky courts were not generally required to allow such questioning. See Current v. Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc., 383 S.W.2d 139 (Ky.1964) (holding that although it was a matter within the trial court's discretion, admission of testimony disclosing specific details of witness compensation was not generally favored). Current was overruled by this Court in Tuttle v. Perry, 82 S.W.3d 920 (Ky.2002), which was decided during the pendency of this appeal. In Tuttle , which reversed a defense judgment in a medical malpractice trial, we held that the amount of money a witness is paid for testifying in a particular case is unquestionably disclosable on cross-examination.... To the extent Current v. Columbia Gas of Kentucky is to the contrary, it is overruled. Id. at 923 (citing Wrobleski v. Nora de Lara, 353 Md. 509, 727 A.2d 930 (1999)). Despite their failure to preserve or even address the issue at trial, Appellants ask that we reverse the judgment in this case on the authority of Mitchell v. Hadl, 816 S.W.2d 183 (Ky.1991) (When the facts reveal a fundamental basis for decision not presented by the parties, it is our duty to address the issue to avoid a misleading application of the law.). This we will not do. The Appellants' reliance on Mitchell , wherein the Court decided the case on a unique legal theory that was not addressed by any party, is clearly misplaced. Appellants do not, indeed cannot, claim that the trial court took any action preventing them from raising the issue of expert witness compensation. More importantly, however, Current only discouraged the introduction of testimony as to expert witness compensation; the decision to admit such testimony was still ultimately left to the discretion of a trial court. Had Appellants wished to introduce the testimony, they could, and should, have raised the issue at trial. As such, there is no doubt that Appellants' decision to forego the issue was unquestionably their own. Such a mistake in judgment, even one that is arguably understandable, provides no basis for reversal.