Court Opinion

ID: 9791949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:20:53.499613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:39.682725
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority goes-to great and painful lengths to find something wrong with the trial court’s discretionary rulings. In the process, it has allowed the sympathetic *82nature of plaintiffs’ case to cloud its reasoning and has reached an incorrect result.
We review the trial court’s rulings only for an abuse of discretion. In matters concerning the administration of a trial, the court’s discretion is broad. Weiss v. Northwest Accept. Corp., 274 Or 343, 356, 546 P2d 1065 (1976). The trial judge’s decision to bifurcate the trial was based on its sound and legitimate determination that the issues of liability and damages were separate and that there was a likelihood that the proceeding could be shortened if the case was disposed of on the question of liability. Those were proper considerations. ORCP 53B; Vander Veer v. Toyota Motor Distributors, 282 Or 135, 143, 577 P2d 1343 (1978). Additionally, plaintiffs held out to the court that their witnesses on liability and damages could be segregated, lending further justification to the court’s ruling. On appeal, they do not contend that they were prevented from putting on evidence relevant to the issue of liability. They argue only that they were prejudiced by the bifurcation, because they had to reorganize their trial presentation. They did not argue that issue to the trial court or request a continuance. I would conclude that bifurcation was not an abuse of discretion.
Additionally, I would hold that the decision to exclude Adam from the courtroom during the liability phase of the trial was not an abuse of discretion and certainly was not reversible error. Adam’s interests were adequately represented by his mother, as guardian ad litem, and his attorney. There was nothing about his personal presence in the courtroom that could have aided the jury in determining whether defendants’ negligence caused his extensive injuries. In view of the fact that Adam could not have assisted his counsel, his absence from the courtroom could have caused no prejudice to his liability case. On the other hand, the trial judge could believe that Adam’s condition was such that his presence could give plaintiffs an unfair advantage by causing the jury to decide the question of liability based on sympathy, a factor that is irrelevant to any issue in the case and certainly to the issue of defendants’ culpability. The court’s ruling did not affect Adam’s right to be present during the damages phase of the trial, when his physical appearance would have been relevant to the question of damages.
*83All of the rulings complained of by plaintiffs were within the trial court’s discretion. Unless we can say that one ruling or more was beyond the range of the trial court’s discretion, we should not reverse. The majority fails to point convincingly to any ruling in which the trial court acted improperly. It is difficult to understand how the two rulings which were not error can, when combined, constitute reversible error.