Court Opinion

ID: 9682143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:05:58.526691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.638812
License: Public Domain

CHAPA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Although I agree that the trial court committed error in refusing to admit the evidence of witness Park’s acquired skills and training which enabled him to more quickly perceive the dangerous situation, I do not agree that the error was harmless.
The court justifies its conclusion that the trial court’s error was harmless on the basis that other observers were able to see the cable. I disagree.
The other observers relied upon by the court were
1) residents of the neighborhood who were able to see the cable because they observed the recovery operation for 15 to 20 minutes, after having had their attention focused on the recovery operation by the initial noise and vehicle movement into place, and by the activities of the safety *266flagman who was warning motorists prior to the arrival of Lopez at the scene;
2) a motorist traveling 2 to 3 car lengths behind Lopez, who was unable to see the cable or anything suspicious until Lopez’ auto hit the cable; and
3) a motorist who drove down the same street shortly before Lopez, whose attention was focused by the sudden braking and turning around of the cars in front of him, by the warnings of the flagman who was still in place, and who after slowing down due to these warnings was able to see the cable only within 25 feet and stop in his car only 6 feet away from it.
Parks was a motorist approaching the scene from the opposite direction of Lopez who was able to see the cable in time to stop although the flagman was no longer in the street warning motorists. However, the trial court refused to admit evidence of his special skills and training in observing dangerous situations, and thus committed error.
It is obvious that Parks is the only witness who was in a situation similar to Lopez. The other “observers” had the advantage of observation for a long period of time, stationary close positions to the scene, and having their attention focused by the positioning of the recovery vehicle and the activities of the safety flagman. Lopez had none of these advantages. Further, Parks had the advantage of special skills and training which enabled him to more quickly perceive the dangerous situation, which Lopez did not have. Since Lopez was prevented from showing this to the jury, the court committed reversible error.
Considering the strong concentration of the defense in final argument on Parks’ testimony, it was also obvious to the defense that Parks was the critical and only witness in a situation similar to Lopez. Assuming, as we reasonably can, that this was also obvious to the jury, I must conclude that the exclusion of this evidence was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in this case. Because it is impossible to forecast how the jury would have apportioned the negligence to the parties had it been able to consider the excluded evidence, the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.