DePalma v. Rodriguez
Plaintiff sued defendant Sonia Rodriguez for personal injuries allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident. The jurys special verdict found that defendant was negligent, but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing any harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff contends he is entitled to a new trial because the court abused its discretion in allowing defendants biomechanic expert to testify at trial to opinions beyond those he had testified to at his deposition.
The general substance of the expert witnesss opinion testimony at his deposition was that the nature of the low speed accident was such that one would not expect a person of normal health to have suffered any injury from the accident in question. Thus, Court find that the expert did not exceed the scope of his deposition testimony when he opined at trial that one would not expect the accident to result in the specific knee and shoulder injuries complained of because the forces are very comparable to what would be experienced during normal routine activities, and there was also no expectation of knee contact. In any event, it is not reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have ensued; the alleged error was not prejudicial.
Comments on DePalma v. Rodriguez