 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sprague v. California Pacific Bankers & Insurance Ltd.12/27/2001
ng brief states, in relevant part, as follows:
For example, expert Ching, who is not even a lawyer (Transcript of proceedings held on 10/20/98 at 4 (PM session)) repeatedly and wrongfully stated that Cross-Appellants were "personally liable" under the Hawaii Revised Statute " (page 14 10/20/99) and that his opinions were based on "Chapter 431 of the Hawaii Revised Statute ." Ching and Takayama also repeatedly testified that Cross-Appellants were "personally liable" under the insurance code and "breached duties" owed under the code and "failed to comply" with the code and that "the breach of this duty as you just described constituted negligence." They were also allowed to testify to such matters as to their opinion "as to whether the purposes of the insurance code were fulfilled" by Cross-Appellants. Such opinions were not only a violation of the rule set forth in Pinero and Create 21, but were also not helpful to the jury (HRE 703), went to the ultimate issue and were simply flat-out wrong.
Moreover, the only transcript cited above (the transcript of the afternoon session on October 20, 1998) was of Ching's testimony when Ching was being cross-examined by counsel for the Defendants/Cross-Appellants.
B.
Defendants/Cross-Appellants contend that the trial court erred in allowing expert Linda Chu Takayama (Takayama) to testify "as the former insurance commissioner of the State of Hawaii." We affirm the trial court.
Takayama testified, in relevant part, as follows:
Q. Have you previously served as the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Hawaii?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you please tell us for what period of time you served as the Insurance Commissioner in this state?
A. From December of 1991 to February of 1994.
Defendants/Cross-Appellants did not object to this testimony when it was presented in the circuit court.
Defendants/Cross-Appellants contend that Takayama's testimony violated the rule cited in Create 21 that a party cannot appeal to a jury to decide a legal question by presenting the opinions of public officers. We conclude that the rule cited above "that witnesses may not give an opinion on a question of domestic law or on matters which involve questions of law" applies to all witnesses, including public officers. We further conclude that no rule prohibits an expert from disclosing to the jury his or her prior service as a public officer in the field of his or her expertise.
C.
Defendants/Cross-Appellants contend that the trial court erred in not striking experts Ching, Takayama, and James Krueger in accordance with Glover v. Grace Pacific Corp., 86 Hawaii 154 (1997), and the trial court's own pretrial ruling. We disagree.
According to Defendants/Cross-Appellants, " he Parties in this case were instructed far in advance of the trial to provide written opinions of experts before the discovery cutoff. Plaintiffs failed to comply with this order. As such, Plaintiffs' experts should have been stricken, especially in light of [Glover]."
Plaintiffs respond, in relevant part, as follows: "It is not surprising that no reference to the record on appeal is made, because no such order was given by the Third Circuit Court. Defendants erroneously imply that the Trial Court ordered experts to prepare and provide written reports of their opinions. No such pre-trial order was made."
The record on appeal supports Plaintiffs in this regard.
D.
Defendants/Cross-Appellants contend that the trial court erred in not "eliminating general damages as an item of damages." The specific q
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|