Opinion ID: 2519712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court's evidentiary rulings were correct

Text: ¶ 36 Plaintiffs assign error to two of the trial court's evidentiary rulings. [66] Under the Oklahoma Evidence Code, the trial court stands as a gatekeeper, admitting or excluding evidence based on the judge's assessment of its relevance and reliability. [67] All relevant evidence is admissible, [68] unless the trial court determines that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or unfair and harmful surprise. [69] A trial court has discretion in deciding whether proffered evidence is relevant and, if so, whether it should be admitted, and a judgment will not be reversed based on a trial judge's ruling to admit or exclude evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion. [70] We conclude that no abuse of discretion attended the trial court's evidentiary rulings. ¶ 37 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by excluding from the liability stage of the trial evidence of railroad policies illustrating the latter's indifference to safety issues as well as evidence demonstrating that the railroad benefited financially from ignoring maintenance and safety issues. [71] We disagree. It was within the trial court's discretion to exclude such evidence as was only marginally relevant to a determination of the railroad's negligence with respect to the particular crossing in question, or was highly prejudicial to a reasoned evaluation of the railroad's conduct, or both.