Opinion ID: 1559891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the petitioner's appeal

Text: His first assignment is to the ruling which prevented Laudati, his expert, from testifying concerning the appraisals he had made of various estate, beach and residential properties located in the Ocean Drive area of Newport. That ruling was made after the witness had already qualified as an expert by virtue of extensive testimony concerning his educational background, his years of experience as an appraiser and as a witness to valuation questions, and his familiarity and appraisal experiences with Newport property. The petitioner's argument, in substance, is that, to restrict his attempt to develop fully Laudati's background and experience in real estate matters denied him the opportunity of establishing that Laudati was so preeminently qualified that his opinion might weigh more heavily with the jury than that of one whose credentials were less impressive. There is support for that position. Wilson v. United States, 350 F.2d 901; Wolf v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 341 F.2d 945. Apart from any considerations of whether in this case the qualification process was unduly protracted, petitioner's argument might weight heavily in a context where the excluded testimony bore some reasonable relationship to the ultimate question involved. Here, however, how Laudati might have appraised estate, beach, or residential properties in Newport's most exclusive area had little if any relevance to his expertise in fixing the value of a sheet metal shop situated in a dissimilar residential zone as a nonconforming use. [1] The trial justice did not, therefore, abuse his discretion when he excluded the testimony, and abuse of discretion is the yardstick we apply in reviewing rulings on a witness's experiential qualifications. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, R.I. 233 A.2d 423, 429; Waldman v. Shipyard Marina, Inc., R.I. 230 A.2d 841, 843; Redding v. Picard Motor Sales, Inc., R.I. 229 A.2d 762, 767. Next petitioner challenges the timeliness [2] of respondent's motion to strike so much of Laudati's testimony as concerned the sale of certain parcels of real estate which he said were comparable to the condemned premises. While that motion was addressed to testimony which had come in without objection during the presentation of petitioner's case, it was not made until after petitioner rested and during the presentation of respondent's case. Although petitioner then urged that the motion was untimely, he did not object when the trial justice, instead of then acting on the motion, took it under advisement, and said that he would defer ruling pending a further opportunity during the recess to study the rule on motions to strike. Later that same day, and after both sides had rested, the trial justice granted the motion. We have referred to the setting surrounding the objection in order to make clear that it related solely to the timeliness of the motion to strike, rather than to its substance or to the time when the ruling was made. On the precise question thus raised, the general rule is that a motion to strike must be made contemporaneously with the admission of the evidence and that it is inappropriate when the testimony to which it is directed has been in response to questions to which no objections were interposed. Bell Co. v. Cote, 84 R.I. 284, 123 A.2d 400; McGarrity v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., 25 R.I. 269, 55 A. 718. A lack of simultaneity between the admission of the evidence and the motion to strike is of no significance, however, where the evidence moved to be stricken, although apparently proper when admitted, is shown to be objectionable at some later stage of the proceedings. Young v. New England Transp. Co., 97 R.I. 499, 199 A.2d 300. This case falls within the exception rather than the rule, because here Laudati's testimony concerning comparable sales was unobjectionable when admitted, and its irrelevancy did not become apparent until after petitioner had rested and while respondent was presenting its case. A motion to strike was then timely, and it was then that it was made. A further specification of error is to the trial justice's refusal to charge as requested by petitioner with respect to what constitutes a nonconforming use. That specification lacks merit inasmuch as the gist of what was requested was fairly and substantially covered, even though not in the exact form and language sought, in the charge as given to the jury. Allen v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 92 R.I. 213, 167 A.2d 752; Tokmakian v. Fritz, 75 R.I. 496, 67 A.2d 834; Boettger v. Mauran, 64 R.I. 340, 12 A.2d 285. Finally petitioner says that the trial justice abused his discretion and therefore erred when he refused to allow respondent's expert to be cross-examined concerning a prior appraisal he had made of the condemned property. The respondent concedes that the rule in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, supra, permits an expert who has testified to the fair market value of condemned property to be cross-examined concerning any prior and extra judicial expressions pertaining to the value of that property. It argues, however, that the general rule should not apply in this case because here the prior appraisal was made before trial by an expert to whom it probably obligated itself to pay for the opinion given and the services rendered. [3] To allow cross-examination in such circumstances, it says, is to compel disclosure of what is tantamount to work product information. It is, of course, true that the opinionative evidence of an expert, whether in a condemnation case or otherwise, is oftentimes protected from pretrial disclosure under deposition  discovery procedures. [4] The cases extending such protection are to be distinguished from those where what is sought is disclosure of the facts observed by a witness to an occurrence, for in litigation involving that kind of subject matter the superior court rules of civil procedure contemplate that a litigant shall be able to secure the help of his adversary in developing his own side of the case. In the case of an expert, however, the protection against discovery, where granted, is customarily premised upon the theory that to permit one party by deposition to examine another's expert before trial would be like taking the latter's property without compensation and would therefore be unfair. Lewis v. United Air Lines Transp. Corp., D.C., 32 F. Supp. 21, 23. That rationale, however, lacks pertinence in a case like this. This was not a pretrial attempt to ascertain the basis upon which the opposing party intended to proceed. Neither was it an attempt, as in L'Etoile v. Director of Public Works, supra, note 3, to ascertain the opinion of an expert employed but not called as a witness by the opposition. Here the expert actually testified, and to compel disclosure of what at an earlier time he might have told his client was not unfair. Once he testified, the overriding consideration became the right of the opposite party to cross-examine in order to develop the facts in the case and to test the witness for possible bias or prejudice, or upon his ability to recollect. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, supra. While it was error for the trial justice to prevent inquiry concerning the prior appraisal, we cannot at this stage of the proceedings say that the exclusion was prejudicial. Prejudice turns upon whether the difference between the opinion given from the witness stand and that given prior to trial was substantial or insubstantial. Our difficulty, and what makes it impossible for us to decide whether or not petitioner was prejudiced, is that we do not know what the earlier appraisal was. The situation we have, then, is a parallel to what we faced in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, supra, and we have the same reluctance here, as we had there, to order a new trial pending a determination of the contents of the prior appraisal. That appraisal is the key. Accordingly, we direct respondent to supplement the record by filing in the office of this court within 20 days of the filing of this opinion whatever prior appraisal it may have had from the witness Virgadamo. At the same time the respondent should furnish a copy of that appraisal to petitioner. Thereafter the parties may on April 7, 1969, having within one week prior thereto filed briefs, appear before this court and argue their respective positions on the sole issue of whether or not plaintiff was prejudiced by the refusal of the trial justice to allow respondent's expert to be cross-examined concerning his prior appraisal. It will then be possible for us to decide whether or not the case should be remitted for a new trial.