 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. Klein3/5/2002
Mobile Cranes, Inc., 18 Cal.Rptr. 750 (1962) ("The interests of justice are best served by permitting to all parties the right of cross-examination of any witness called."). See also Simon v. Carroll, 62 N.W.2d 822, 827 (Minn. 1954).
In the present case, Clark and Ayres are separate parties with separate interests. This is not a case where a single party is represented by more than one counsel, where the limitation to cross-examination by a single counsel might have been an appropriate exercise of discretion. Clark and Ayres are no longer married to each other and they may have suffered different damages as a result of Corey's death. These differences in interest require that each party be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. We need not decide whether the trial judge's ruling was reversible error, but completely excluding cross-examination by Ayres, who was represented by separate counsel was outside the bounds of the trial judge's discretion.
V. CONCLUSION
It was reversible error for the trial judge to allow Bourquard to testify and, therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial. We award costs to Appellants on appeal.
Justices SCHROEDER, WALTERS, KIDWELL and EISMANN, CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|