Opinion ID: 1954195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: setting aside the automobile collision judgment

Text: Motions to vacate judgment under SDCL 15-6-60 are in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless the record affirmatively shows that there has been an abuse of discretion. [3] Haggar v. Olfert, 387 N.W.2d 45, 51 (S.D. 1986). The trial court may grant relief from final judgment based on mistake, surprise, newly discovered evidence and for any other reason which justifies relief. SDCL 15-6-60(b)(1), (2) & (6). Although the trial court based its decision on each of these grounds, newly discovered evidence provides a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the trial court. To be granted relief from judgment on a claim of newly discovered evidence, Fullmer, the moving party, must establish that (1) The evidence was discovered after trial; (2) [Fullmer] exercised due diligence to obtain the evidence for trial; (3) The evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) The evidence is material; and (5) The evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a new verdict. Haggar, 387 N.W.2d at 51. Applying the facts to each part of the test, we determine the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (1) It is beyond dispute that Dr. Boyer changed his opinion after the automobile collision trial. (2) Dr. Boyer's discovery deposition was taken just two weeks before the automobile collision trial. Dr. Boyer admitted during cross-examination in the arm-raising trial that his opinion on Fullmer's RSD did not change until after he had given his deposition and after the automobile collision trial. Fullmer was diligent in obtaining Dr. Boyer's evidence for the automobile collision trial. (3) Dr. Boyer's opinion testimony, as given in the second trial, was unique on the issue of causation of Fullmer's RSD. [4] (4) Dr. Boyer's changed testimony is obviously material, as the cause of Fullmer's RSD was the main damage issue in the battery trial and was expressly omitted by the parties from the automobile collision trial. (5) Lastly, had Dr. Boyer, the defense's expert, testified that the automobile collision caused Fullmer's RSD, there probably would have been a different verdict at the automobile collision trial, even though Fullmer's expert may have testified the arm-raising was the cause. The opinion testimony of Dr. Boyer does, therefore, constitute newly discovered evidence. We are not left with a conviction that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Fullmer's motion to set aside the automobile collision judgment.