Court Opinion

ID: 9657851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:39:23.225516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:48.815167
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I join the dissent of Justice Amundson.
A careful reading of the majority opinion shows that it violates the letter and/or spirit of four important recent cases of this court. Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 820 (S.D.1991); Cozine v. Midwest Coast Transport, Inc., 454 N.W.2d 548, 553-54 (S.D.1990); Zepp v. Hofmann, 444 N.W.2d 28, 31 (S.D.1989); and Martino v. Park Jefferson Racing Ass’n., 315 N.W.2d 309, 312-13 (S.D.1982).
By arbitrarily limiting the testimony of the vocational rehabilitation expert regarding loss of employability, the trial court and the majority opinion also violate the letter and/or spirit of SDCL 19-15-2, 3 and 4 (Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703 and 704). It is interesting to note that the majority opinion can be searched in vain without finding even one reference to these statutes. All this, despite the majority’s proclamation, “We are controlled by precedent.”
*600The majority asserts that “[T]he ‘cap’ which was placed upon Ostrander’s testimony by the trial court, was wise.” The majority also states that:
As the appellate body, we owe a duty, firmly entrenched by stare decisis, to review evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party (Morgan); and conflicting evidence is to be resolved to support the verdict. Hoffman v. Royer, 359 N.W.2d 387, 388 (S.D.1984). We have done so.
It is easy to lose one’s focus on an eviden-tiary ruling when distracted by sufficiency of the evidence, which is not even an issue in this ease. In this case, the issue and our duty is simply to determine whether the evidence was admissible. It was. Therefore, we should reverse and remand for a fair trial.