Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Thompson v. Dreszer

12/3/2004

dict. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion and allowing the case to be considered by the jury.


Appellants' second assignment of error focuses upon an alleged violation of CR 43.09, the "separation of witnesses" rule. Appellants argue that the rule was violated when appellees' experts who testified at trial were not precluded from reviewing the transcript of Dr. Minnefor's "rebuttal" deposition taken four days prior to trial. We find no error.


The purpose of CR 43.09 is to prevent a witness from being unduly influenced by the testimony he hears being given by other witnesses. An issue almost identical to that advanced in this appeal was examined by the court in Sanders v. Drane, and resolved by application of the following rationale:


As a matter of fact, depositions required to be filed in court under CR 30.06(1) become public records and are open to examination by anyone. To say that a witness who has read a deposition in a case is thereby disqualified from testifying would impair the proper administration of justice. . . . We do not think CR 43.09 should be extended to defeat good trial practice and the ultimate ascertainment of truth.


Furthermore, we view the rule as intended to prevent witnesses from fashioning their testimony on disputed factual issues from conforming their testimony to that of other witnesses. The rule has little, if any, pertinence to experts whose role is to consider the opinions of other experts and assist the trier of fact by offering an opinion as to the validity of another expert's view of the evidence.


Finally, we perceive no error in the refusal of the trial court to grant a default judgment against Dr. Osborne. The matter falls well within the wide discretion afforded trial courts to grant additional time to respond to pleadings. Appellants can point to no abuse of that discretion in this case.


The judgment is affirmed.


ALL CONCUR.






Page 1 2 3 

Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE