Opinion ID: 561002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: limitation of testimony

Text: 9 We will not disturb a trial court's ruling regarding admission or exclusion of evidence, including testimony by expert witnesses, unless the trial court has abused its discretion. Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1459 (10th Cir.1987). 10 Mr. Stafford called Benjamin Taylor, Ph.D., an expert in labor economics, to testify as to Mr. Stafford's loss of earning capacity. The court granted the appellee's motion in limine to limit Dr. Taylor's testimony to the fact that Mr. Stafford had suffered a 40 percent loss of earnings from sedentary employment because of his asbestosis. The court would not allow Dr. Taylor to testify that Mr. Stafford had suffered a 100 percent loss of earnings as an insulation worker. The court so ruled because Mr. Stafford's own medical witnesses had already testified that he had ceased insulation work because of his stroke, not because of asbestosis. See record, vol. 12, at 5. The court offered to allow Mr. Stafford to recall his medical witnesses in order to establish that, but for the asbestosis, he would have recovered enough from the stroke the return to insulation work. Mr. Stafford declined to do so, and Dr. Taylor proceeded to give his limited testimony. Id. at 6-7. 11 Under these circumstances, we do not believe the court abused its discretion. However, even if the court had erred, the jury never reached the question of Mr. Stafford's alleged damages because the jury found the appellees were not liable. Thus, any error would have been harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61.