Opinion ID: 2371937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Officer Rowlett

Text: One issue contested at trial was whether the white light on the aft of the party barge (stern/anchor light) was on at the time of the collision. The appellants sought to present the testimony of Officer Rowlett, one of the investigating officers, who was trained in filament deformation. The appellees contended Rowlett should not be allowed to testify that he examined the filaments in the white bulb from the party barge and, in his opinion, the light was on at the time of the collision. The appellees asserted they did not learn of Rowlett's testimony until the opening statement by counsel for appellants and the failure to disclose was a violation of ARCP Rule 26 regarding discovery. In response to an interrogatory requesting the names of persons who would offer opinions, expert or otherwise, the Wades stated that other than physicians who were expected to testify regarding medical treatment, no other expert witnesses have yet to be determined. The response further stated that Lay witnesses are expected to testify as to their observations which may include some opinions based upon observations or mixed questions of opinion or observation. The trial judge commented that this is not the way to try a lawsuit, and he determined the fair thing was to only allow Rowlett to testify as to what he observed when he made his investigation. The trial court held that Rowlett could not give an opinion as to whether the light was on or off. At trial, Rowlett testified he attended a school regarding the investigation of boating accidents. Officer Rowlett testified he observed the aft light and retained the bulb; he stated the light is deformed. At an in camera hearing, counsel for the appellants proffered additional testimony from Officer Rowlett. Rowlett stated that the bulb was deformed or distorted, and such deformation indicated the bulb was on at the time of the collision. Although Rowlett was listed as a witness, he was not disclosed as an expert. Counsel for the appellants stated he visited with the officer the day before the trial and found that the officer was in possession of the bulb recovered from the accident. The appellants principally assert that the disclosure of Rowlett as a witness was sufficient, and that according to Banks v. Jackson, 312 Ark. 232, 848 S.W.2d 408 (1993), there must be at least a passive concealment before any imposition of a sanction. Further, the appellants submit the appellees presented no reason for their failure to depose Officer Rowlett. Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) provides: A party is under a duty to seasonably supplement his response with respect to any questions directly addressed to ... the identity and location of each person expected to be called as a witness at trial, and in the case of expert witnesses, the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, and the substance of his testimony. Further, we have stated that a trial court has broad discretion in matters pertaining to discovery, and that discretion will not be second-guessed by the appellate court absent an abuse of discretion that is prejudicial to the appealing party. Banks, supra ; Morris v. Cullipher, 306 Ark. 646, 816 S.W.2d 878 (1991). As to the requirement of a concealment, the Banks case addressed a violation of ARCP Rule 26(e)(2)(B). Rule 26(e)(2)(B) provides a party is under a duty to seasonably amend a prior response if he obtains information which would make the prior response, though correct when made, no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment. There is no requirement that the trial court make a finding of concealment under Rule 26(e)(1). Under the circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the witness to testify as to his observations and prohibiting him from providing his opinion regarding whether the light was on at the time of the collision.