Opinion ID: 2567333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the district court properly limited bidez's rebuttal testimony

Text: The Kirks argue that the district court compounded the error in its decision to allow Moffatt to present seatbelt evidence by limiting the testimony of their expert rebuttal witness, Bidez. Ford responds that the district court properly limited the testimony because it would have brought in a new claim of product defect and was contrary to the Seatbelt Order. Bidez was permitted to testify that the occupants were dead prior to being ejected from the vehicle. The district court properly noted that the Kirks' remedy to Moffatt's testimony would have been to object at trial rather than attempt to proffer the inadmissible testimony of Bidez which would have added theories to the trial that were not a proper part of the case. Oral stipulations in the presence of the court and on the record are traditionally held binding. Kohring v. Robertson, 137 Idaho 94, 99, 44 P.3d 1149, 1154 (2002)(quoting Conley v. Whittlesey, 126 Idaho 630, 633, 888 P.2d 804, 807 (Ct.App.1995)). A stipulation is a contract. The enforceability of an oral stipulation is determined by contract principles. Id. (quoting Olson v. Idaho Dept. of Water Res., 105 Idaho 98, 100, 666 P.2d 188, 190 (1983) (citation omitted)). An enforceable contract requires distinct understanding common to both parties ... Hoffman v. S V Co. Inc., 102 Idaho 187, 189, 628 P.2d 218, 220 (1981). Prior to trial the Kirks orally stipulated that they would not bring any crashworthiness claims (i.e. allegations the restraint system was defective) against Ford. This stipulation was confirmed in a written correspondence between the Kirks' attorney and counsel for Ford. When attempting to offer the testimony of Bidez, the Kirks stated that Bidez would testify the seatbelts in the vehicle were defectively designed. Such testimony would have been contrary to the Kirks' prior stipulation and written statements to Ford's counsel. The district court gave effect to these stipulations and refused to allow Bidez to testify that the vehicle's seatbelts were defectively designed. Bidez was still permitted to testify that the occupants died prior to being ejected and that had they worn seatbelts it would not have made a difference. The district court properly limited Bidez' testimony. There was no abuse of discretion.