 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kilpatrick v. Wiley12/14/2001
be admitted, but only for limited purposes. We believe the trial court's determination to use the principles of rule 411 in tempering the admissibility of the agreements under rule 403 was within its permitted discretion.
C. Expert Report and Testimony
To prove damages due to defendants' legal malpractice, plaintiffs intended to call Albin Seethaler as an expert witness in addition to Schutz. The trial court determined that plaintiffs could call both as expert witnesses. Seethaler's report and testimony were to provide an alternative damage theory at trial. Seethaler's estimate of damages was based on a 1998 appraisal of Fox-owned Channel 13. In that appraisal, Seethaler valued Channel 13 at over $149 million. Seethaler concluded this figure provided a measure of the plaintiffs' lost opportunity value due to breaches of fiduciary duty by defendants in 1990.
During trial, however, the trial court reversed its previous ruling and declared Seethaler's testimony inadmissible. The trial court concluded it was irrelevant. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in excluding the expert report and testimony of Albin Seethaler. We disagree.
"The trial court is `granted broad discretion in determining the relevance of proffered evidence,' and we review the trial court's decision for abuse of that discretion." Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch, 1999 UT 20, 17, 979 P.2d 317 (quoting Hall v. Process Instruments & Control, 890 P.2d 1024, 1028 (Utah 1995)).
Seethaler's calculation of damages began by calculating the actual value of the Fox-owned Channel 13 as of January 1, 1998, well after the purchase of Channel 20. Seethaler deemed the value of Channel 13 to be $149.5 million. This evidence was offered to demonstrate the business opportunity lost as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duty by defendants that occurred during 1990 when Channel 13 was sold to Fox. Seethaler was prepared to testify that Channel 13 would have been worth at least that amount or more had the sale not been made. The trial court, however, found this evidence inadmissible. We conclude the trial court acted within its permitted discretion in so ruling.
" he general objective of tort law to place an injured person in a position as nearly as possible to the position he would have occupied but for the defendant's tort . . . ." Acculog, Inc. v. Peterson, 692 P.2d 728, 731 (Utah 1984) (citing State v. Stanley, 506 P.2d 1284 (Alaska 1973)). Were a jury to award damages based on Seethaler's evidence, however, it would place the plaintiffs in a position they only would have occupied because of alleged breaches that occurred before the station's sale in 1990 to Fox. For instance, it ignores the fact that key to the 1990 sale was the prior purchase of Channel 20 by MWT, Ltd., from Adams, which plaintiffs decry as stemming from defendants' breach of fiduciary duties. Such a verdict would provide the plaintiffs an improper windfall by granting them financial advantages they would not have received without the alleged tortious conduct of defendants prior to the 1990 sale of Channel 13 to Fox.
We conclude that such an approach undermines the proper purpose of tort damages. It allows plaintiffs to distort the damages to their best advantage by ignoring breaches of fiduciary duties that actually worked to their benefit. For instance, Seethaler's estimation of damages ignores plaintiffs' claim that the purchase of Channel 20 by MWT, Ltd., constituted a breach of fiduciary duty; however, it is pure speculation that Fox would have purchased Channel 13 and that Channel 13's value would be equal to the reported value in 1997, as suggested by Seethaler, absent the purchase
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|