Opinion ID: 1119219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Rohloff's Testimony

Text: Yukon also challenges the trial court's exclusion of testimony by its mechanic, Frank Rohloff, pertaining to the results of his inspection of the Drott crane in 1972. Rohloff testified that he had performed a pressure check on the brake lines after rebuilding the master cylinder and that the seals in the master cylinder had appeared normal at the time he rebuilt it. This testimony was stricken as a sanction under Alaska R.Civ.P. 37(d) for failure to make discovery. [3] In the trial court's view, the information should have been disclosed previously in response to an interrogatory sent to Yukon that asked for all information... regarding the use of hydraulic fluid in the accident vehicle, including ... a description of any parts replaced as a part of the maintenance performed following the use of hydraulic fluid in the system... . Alaska R.Civ.P. 33 requires that each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully. Clearly, it was not error for the trial court to find that the condition of the seals replaced in the master cylinder and the pressure check should have been described in Yukon's answer to the above-stated interrogatory. We hold that the sanction excluding the testimony was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion.