 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinmaas v. Engelmann6/28/2000
and damages sought differed significantly. In addition, he notes that there are witnesses who would not have testified in all three trials had the cases been separated. Finally, he argues that although the special damages incurred were different as to each plaintiff, the jury returned identical verdicts for each one, thereby proving that the jury prejudicially viewed the three cases identically.
[ ] In Landstrom v. Shaver, 1997 SD 25, 561 NW2d 1, we considered whether a trial court abused its discretion in consolidating claims for trial. There the defendants argued they were harmed when the trial court consolidated equitable and legal claims. Id. , 561 NW2d at 6. They argued that such consolidation prejudiced the jury by allowing in evidence related to the equity claim that would have otherwise been inadmissible for the legal claim. Id. Further, the defendants claimed there were no common issues of fact. Id. , 561 NW2d at 6.
[ ] While expressing concern about the inclusion of facts which were totally irrelevant to a given cause of action or a party, Id. , 561 NW2d at 7, we stated that the "'mere possibility of some prejudice does not justify separate trials where such prejudice is not substantial and there are strong countervailing considerations of economy.'" Id. , 561 NW2d at 6 (quoting Tri-R Systems, Ltd. v. Friedman & Son, Inc., 94 FRD 726, 728 (DColo 1982)). We eventually concluded the judge did not abuse his discretion in consolidating the claims. Id. , 561 NW2d at 7. In reaching that decision we considered that the legal issues of breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference overlapped common facts with the equitable claim. Id. , 561 NW2d at 6. In addition, separate trials would have been non-conducive to expedition and economy. Id.
[ ] As in Landstrom, here we must weigh allegations of prejudice against judicial expedition and economy. Even after consolidation, this trial lasted eight days, involved over thirty witnesses, and produced over 1800 pages of records and exhibits. Considering the trial judge's decision that many of the witnesses would have given duplicate testimony had three separate trial been conducted, we understand how such an endeavor would have been anything but expeditious and economical. Despite Engelmann's claims to the contrary, there are common questions of law and fact among these cases. In each case, the plaintiff claims to have been subjected to an inappropriate, highly-traumatizing gynecological examination by Engelmann. These alleged incidents are relatively contemporaneous. Moreover, Engelmann mounts the same defense in each case: complete innocence from any wrongdoing. His claim that a handful of witnesses testified for only one plaintiff fails to show prejudice to the extent reversal is necessary. Similarly, his claim that the similar damage awards shows prejudice is unsupported.
[ ] In view of the law and circumstances in this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in consolidating Plaintiffs' cases.
[ ] 3.It was not prejudicial error to allow Plaintiffs to obtain and make use of the transcript from Engelmann's medical license re-application hearing.
[ ] A trial court's evidentiary rulings "are presumed correct and are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Larson, 1998 SD 80, , 582 NW2d 15, 17 (citing State v. Goodroad, 1997 SD 46, , 563 NW2d 126, 129 (citation omitted)). "The test is not whether we would have made the same ruling, but whether we believe a judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances, could have reasonably reached the same conclusion." Id. Further, the claimed error must have been more than harmless - it must have been prejudic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|