Opinion ID: 1267547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: safety inspection testimony

Text: Before we discuss appellants' contention that the testimony regarding certain safety inspection reports should have been excluded, a brief discussion of related events that transpired during trial is necessary. The trial of this case lasted three days. Mr. Durham, the park superintendent, was called by appellants and testified at the end of the first day of trial. During cross-examination by appellee, superintendent Durham testified that an engineering firm conducted yearly safety inspections and advised the park of any possible safety hazards. He further stated that the engineering firm had never recommended placing a mat or other moisture gathering device in the area where Mrs. Maples fell. Appellants made no objections during superintendent Durham's testimony regarding the safety inspections. Similarly, no objections or motions to strike were made immediately following his testimony. On the second day of trial, appellants called their expert, Mr. Sober, as the first witness. During appellants' direct examination, counsel asked Mr. Sober whether he had observed any safety hazards during his visit to the park that he would have included in a safety report if he had been asked to provide one. Mr. Sober described several conditions that he considered safety hazards. Appellee objected, stating that Mr. Sober had testified to matters which had not been previously raised. Appellants' counsel then commented that he was attempting to show notice on the part of the park in response to superintendent Durham's earlier testimony that yearly safety inspections had been performed. The court overruled appellee's objection. On the afternoon of the third day of trial, superintendent Durham was again called to testify, this time as a witness for appellee. On direct examination, appellee asked superintendent Durham additional questions regarding the safety inspections. Appellants' counsel asked to approach the bench, where he explained that he was objecting to the written reports of the safety inspections. Counsel stated that he had requested the production of safety reports during discovery, and appellee's counsel failed to produce any such reports. Appellee's counsel stated that he had not been aware of the reports prior to the first day of trial and that he furnished appellants with copies of the reports after obtaining the same. He further stated that he did not intend to enter the reports into evidence, but that he did intend to question superintendent Durham about the reports and their contents. During the exchange regarding this testimony, appellants' counsel commented to the court, [l]et me ask you this: He has already testified about this to a certain extent. I don't know how we are going to deal with the stuff he has already testified to. To which the court responded, [w]e're not going to do anything about it. The transcript is not clear, but it appears that the court thereafter ruled to exclude the reports and any testimony regarding their contents. After further discussion, however, appellants' counsel said, [l]et him talk about it because you're not going to put the report[s] in. The court then stated that it would change its ruling, but was interrupted before it could explain the change. Appellee's counsel subsequently questioned superintendent Durham regarding the safety inspections and the contents of the resulting reports, including the absence of recommendations regarding the stairwell in question. The reports were not offered into evidence. Appellants complain that appellee improperly withheld the safety inspection reports during discovery. Therefore, testimony relating to the safety inspection reports should have been excluded. Appellants suggest that Mr. Durham's entire cross-examination testimony from the first day of trial should have been struck. Appellants further argue that counsel did not acquiesce in the court's ruling or waive the objection on appeal, because counsel's failure to object was understandable and excusable under Gilmer v. Sydenstricker, 42 W.Va. 52, 24 S.E. 566 (1896) (exception to ruling upon admission or rejection of evidence in jury trial must be made before the jury retires). [2] Counsel acknowledges that Gilmer is an 1896 case that predated the current rules of evidence, but counsel asserts that it is still good law because it was codified as part of Rule 103(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. Finally, appellants assert that counsel's objection, made two days after the testimony was initially admitted, was contemporaneous under the circumstances so as to make it timely within the meaning of Evidence Rule 103(a)(1). Appellee asserts that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by allowing Mr. Durham's testimony, because appellants waived any objection to Mr. Durham's testimony by failing to timely object, as required by Rule 103(a)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and footnote four of Reed v. Wimmer, 195 W.Va. 199, 465 S.E.2d 199 (1995) (an objection must be interposed at the time the evidence has been offered and the trial court thus be given an opportunity to rule on the admissibility of the evidence.). Moreover, appellee contends that the West Virginia Rules of Evidence repose significant discretion in the trial court in to make evidentiary and procedural rulings. McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995). Finally, appellee notes that appellants failed to ask the trial judge to strike superintendent Durham's earlier testimony as part of a discovery sanction and they did not complain of any unfair surprise at any time during the trial. After reviewing the record in this case and carefully considering the trial events discussed above, we find that appellants failed to object to the testimony regarding the safety inspections. Under Rule 103(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence: (a) ... Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1) ... In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context;.... In addition, Rule 46 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure states: Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary; but for all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and his grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice him. In Konchesky v. S.J. Groves and Sons Co., 148 W.Va. 411, 415, 135 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1964), this Court recognized that Rule 46 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows that formal exceptions are unnecessary, but parties must still make it clear that they object to the ruling or order of the court in order to preserve such matter for appeal. Exceptions to the action of the trial court may now be made by the parties under this Rule by making it known to the court the action which is desired of the court or by an objection being made to the action taken by the court and the grounds therefor.... The Konchesky Court also recognized that Rule 46 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is in the identical language as Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing such matters, and the authorities construing Federal Rule 46 hold that although exceptions are unnecessary by this Rule, it is still necessary for objections to be made. Pfau v. Witcover, 4 Cir., 139 F.2d 588; Monaghan v. Hill, 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 31; United States v. Vater, 2 Cir., 259 F.2d 667. Id., 148 W.Va. at 415, 135 S.E.2d at 302-03. In the instant case, there has been no allegation that appellants were denied the opportunity to object. Therefore, in order to preserve this alleged error, it must be apparent from the record that counsel made known to the court his ground for objecting and the action he desired the court to take. The record is void of such evidence. When the complained of testimony was first offered, counsel was silent. The following day, counsel made no objection or motion to strike, yet put on rebuttal evidence. Finally, on the third day, counsel objected to the admission of the reports only, which were excluded. Counsel subsequently acquiesced to the admission of the testimony regarding the reports. [3] A litigant may not silently acquiesce to [an alleged] error, or actively contribute to such error, and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on appeal. In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 374, 284 S.E.2d 867, 880 (1981). Furthermore, we find that counsel's comment, I don't know how we are going to deal with the stuff he has already testified to, made two days after the testimony was offered, was insufficient to meet the requirement that counsel object and make known the grounds of such objection. `Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on appeal.' Syl. pt. 1, State Road Commission v. Ferguson, 148 W.Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 (1964). Syl. pt. 1, Estep v. Brewer, 192 W.Va. 511, 453 S.E.2d 345 (1994). [4] Finally, with regard to the challenged testimony, we find that appellants' right to appellate review is not saved by plain error. To trigger application of the `plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Syl. pt. 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995); Voelker v. Frederick Business Properties, 195 W.Va. 246, 254, 465 S.E.2d 246, 254 (1995). The Miller court explained that the plain error analysis begins with a determination of whether there was in fact an error. [D]eviation from a rule of law is error unless there is a waiver. Waiver ... is the `intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.' ... [W]hen there has been such a knowing waiver, there is no error and the inquiry as to the effect of the deviation from a rule of law need not be determined. Id. at 18, 459 S.E.2d at 129 (citations omitted). [5] As discussed above, we have found that appellants waived their right to review. In addition, we find that the inclusion of the complained of testimony did not affect the substantial rights of the plaintiff in this case. The Miller Court explained that [n]ormally, to affect substantial rights means that the error was prejudicial. It must have affected the outcome of the proceedings in the circuit court. Id. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Consequently, we find that the admission of the testimony regarding the safety inspection reports did not give rise to plain error.