Court Opinion

ID: 9759538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:19:35.854392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:02.725597
License: Public Domain

Berger, J.,
Dissenting.
The majority attempts to reconcile the trial court’s two evidentiary rulings without ever coming to grips with the fact that Potter was not allowed to cross-examine Dr. Ger on a significant basis for his medical conclusion. The jury heard Dr. Ger testify that the collision was low impact; that part of what he relied on in determining it was low impact was the amount of damage to Potter’s vehicle; and that a low-impact collision would not have caused the injuries Potter claimed were attributable to the accident. The trial court did not let the jury hear the following testimony, elicited on cross-examination:
Q. Now part of what you relied upon in determining that this was a low-impact collision was the amount of damage to Mrs. Potter’s vehicle; isn’t that correct?
A. Correct.
[[Image here]]
Q. Were you aware of the fact that it [cost] in excess of $8,000 to repair the front of the striking vehicle?
A. No, I was not.
[[Image here]]
Q. Would the information concerning the amount of damage that was caused to the front of the striking vehicle affect your opinion that this accident was a low-impact collision?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. Would the fact that this accident was not a low-impact collision but involved a higher impact have any effect on your opinion concerning the cause of Miss Potter’s injury?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because if this were a high-impact collision, then I could see some damage being incurred to her shoulder. If it was a low-impact collision as I understood from her, then, as I said, I cannot see any correlation.
The majority says it would be “nonsensical” to have allowed this testimony into evidence. Perhaps so, if Dr. Ger’s other “causation” testimony had been excluded. After letting the jury hear why Potter’s injuries could not have resulted from this “low impact” collision, however, common sense dictates that the jury also hear the other side of that issue through the cross-examination quoted above.
I would reverse for a new trial and, accordingly, I dissent.