Suarez v. Colosimo
In September 2003, plaintiff, sued defendant for damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident that occurred in September 2002. When the parties appeared for trial in November 2005, defendant sought dismissal on the basis that no expert medical testimony was available from plaintiff and plaintiff had not shown he would be able to argue or prove causation of injury without it, since other causative factors had been raised as set forth in the affirmative defenses in the answer. The trial court dismissed the action.
Plaintiff appeals, claiming the trial court erroneously applied the law to find that expert testimony would be necessary to prove causation of damages, since this was a rear end collision and plaintiff believed lay witness testimony would have been sufficient to prove some of his injuries, such as emotional distress. Plaintiff also claims the trial court erred or abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss and/or refusing to continue the trial to allow other expert testimony to be presented, such as through cross_examination of the defense expert.
In response, defendant argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making those rulings because the court had the authority to hear a nonstatutory dismissal request and to dismiss the case under these circumstances. (Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479 (Gotschall).) Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and there were reasonable justifications for each of the trial court's rulings. Accordingly, court affirm.
Comments on Suarez v. Colosimo