Court Opinion

ID: 9739025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:07:25.235891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.692297
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring in result).
I disagree with the majority holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion (1) in denying the expert testimony and (2) in the manner it/handled the deposition testimony. I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in both areas, but that such error was not prejudicial.
Justice Henderson, speaking for this court in K & E Land and Cattle, Inc. v. Mayer, 330 N.W.2d 529, 533 (S.D.1983), defined “prejudicial error” as “that which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the final result and affected rights of the party assigning it.”
Considering all of the other compelling evidence, including the eyewitness testimony, I am convinced that the error committed by the trial court had no effect on the result and the jury would have reached the same verdict. See also Koupal & Anton, Inc. v. Wieczorek, 375 N.W.2d 639 (S.D. 1985); Shaull v. Hart, 327 N.W.2d 50 (S.D. 1982); State Highway Commission v. Beets, 88 S.D. 536, 224 N.W.2d 567 (1974); and Allen v. McLain, 75 S.D. 520, 69 N.W.2d 390 (1955).
I am authorized to state that MORGAN, J., joins in this concurrence in result.