Court Opinion

ID: 9673449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:12:01.327465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.279946
License: Public Domain

DAVIES, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The case before us presents unusual circumstances that make it distinguishable from Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn.1995). The evidence appellant seeks to introduce is the testimony and report of the railroad’s expert. The adverse nature of the railroad at the time the expert conducted his testing lends substantial credibility to this evidence when now brought forward by the injured claimant against a second defendant, respondent here. The evidence should be admitted for whatever weight the jury gives it, after respondent independently reviews the report and cross-examines the expert.
The Patton rule is a harsh one that can be avoided under the particular circumstances of the case. Respondent would not be nearly as prejudiced by admitting the evidence as appellant is by its exclusion, which exclusion leads inevitably to the dismissal of appellant’s potentially meritorious law suit. And respondent, unlike the defendant in Patton, would not be unfairly prejudiced by the admission of the essentially independent expert’s testimony and report — evidence subject to challenge by cross-examination.
I would reverse the trial court’s sanction excluding the evidence and remand for trial.