Opinion ID: 2593851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Walden Failed to Preserve for Appeal Her Objection to the Superior Court's Exclusion of the DOT Design Study Report.

Text: Walden contends on appeal that the superior court erred in excluding a DOT Design Study Report (DSR) that contained vital information essential to her case. We hold that Walden failed to preserve this issue. While Walden did oppose the state's motion in limine to exclude the DSR, she did not object to the exclusion of the report at trial. A review of Walden's statements at trial even indicate that she did the opposite: She agreed with the trial court's DSR ruling and explicitly stated that it was correct. During the trial, Walden's counsel admitted several times in open court that he did not dispute the trial court's ruling on the DSR. After moving for a mistrial because DOT expert Greg Frazier had testified that he had used data gathered during a 1991 survey of the curve in his analysis, Walden's counsel restated the language of the statute that formed the basis for the exclusion of the DSR and said that we have never taken exception, in fact, I have candidly agreed with the court the case law here is legion that the Design Study Report cannot be used in a courtroom. Later that day, Walden's counsel reiterated his earlier position: [i]f the court goes back and looks at [our] pleadings on the issue, we never responded by saying `no judge, you can't keep out the design study report'in fact we agreed. Moments later, Walden's counsel explicitly stated it's not going to be an issue on appeal that the court improperly excluded the design study report. [20] It is well-settled that a party must object to evidence at the time it is offered in order to preserve the issue on appeal. [21] Similarly, we have held that a party's failure to make an offer of proof on a particular piece of evidence also acts as a waiver to any claim of error. [22] In the instant case, Walden did not object to the DSR at trial. She also failed to make any offers of proof regarding the DSR. Rather, she expressed her agreement with the court's ruling, accepted it as correct, and explicitly stated that the DSR ruling would not be an issue on appeal. In effect, Walden's statements expressly conceding that the trial court's ruling was correct, coupled with her failure to object to the DSR ruling and her failure to make an offer of proof on the DSR at trial, constitute a representation that she no longer considered the DSR ruling at issue. Because Walden's affirmative representations to the court effectively waived her objection to the trial court's exclusion of the DSR, she has waived the issue and cannot now challenge the ruling on appeal. Even if Walden had not waived this issue, we would affirm nonetheless because the superior court did not err in excluding the DSR. The superior court excluded the DSR on the basis of 23 U.S.C.A. § 409, which explicitly states that reports made for the purpose of planning safety enhancements for or developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented using federal highway funds cannot be subject to discovery or admitted in any state or federal action for damages arising from an accident occurring at a locale mentioned in the report. [23] Walden conceded that the DSR is the type of report covered by the statute, but challenged the superior court's decision to exclude it on grounds that the state had waived the protection of the statute by providing it to her during discovery. The state did provide the report in discovery, but Walden's argument nonetheless fails because, at most, by that action DOT waived only the protection of the statute with respect to discovery, not to its admission in court. The statute provides that materials like the DSR shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding. [24] DOT timely objected to use of the report at trial. The trial court ruled on the DSR at the same time it ruled on all of the other items contained in both parties' motions in limine. Because DOT timely objected to use of the DSR at trial, it is clear that DOT did not waive the protection of the federal statute with respect to admissibility of the DSR at trial. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this report on federal law grounds.