Opinion ID: 1256140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Testimony/Complex Issues of Liability and Damages

Text: ¶ 16 Both petitioner and the UDLA argue that automobile accident personal injury cases are outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the small claims courts. Specifically, petitioner argues that cases involving represented parties, expert testimony, substantial documentary evidence, and liability and damages issues are too complex for small claims courts in light of the statutory objective that small claims courts dispense speedy justice between the parties. Utah Code Ann. § 78-6-8 (Supp.1999). Focusing more narrowly upon expert testimony, the UDLA argues that small claims courts are without jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving expert testimony because the small claims forum does not allow judges to effectively perform their gatekeeping function by carefully scrutinizing proffered scientific evidence. Moreover, the UDLA argues that parties are denied the opportunity to meaningfully cross-examine experts in small claims cases because parties do not have the benefit of formal discovery. ¶ 17 Although we acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns raised by petitioner and the UDLA, we are bound by the language of the statute. [5] As stated previously, the statute clearly enumerates three requirements in order for an action to qualify as a small claims action: (1) the action must be for the recovery of money; (2) the amount claimed must not exceed $5,000; and (3) the defendant must reside or the action of indebtedness must be incurred within the jurisdiction of the court where the action is brought. See id. § 78-6-1(1)(a). Other than these requirements, the statute does not limit the types of cases that small claims courts may hear, or exclude certain types of evidence. Therefore, under the language of the statute, neither automobile accident personal injury cases, nor cases involving expert testimony are excluded from the small claims courts' jurisdiction. Because [t]he small claims court is totally a creature of statute, Faux, 725 P.2d at 1374 (citation omitted), we decline the invitation by petitioner and the UDLA to write additional jurisdictional requirements into the statute. Necessary changes must be adopted by the legislature, not added by the court.