 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haggerty v. Foster12/5/2002
, 441 So.2d 1374, 1375 (Miss.1983)). See also K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 986 (34) (Miss.1999); State Highway Comm'n of Miss. v. Jones, 649 So.2d 201, 203 (Miss.1995). As mentioned, Dr. Richardson's report was not disclosed prior to the point in trial when Haggerty sought to introduce it. This Court has stated " he standard of review regarding admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. Where error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, this Court will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party." Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So. 2d 110, 113 (12) (Miss. 1999). "In regard to matters relating to discovery, the trial court has considerable discretion. The discovery orders of the trial court will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co., 607 So. 2d 1232, 1235 (Miss. 1992).
. In Robert v. Colson, 729 So. 2d 1243, 1246 (Miss. 1999), this Court found that Rule 26 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides for seasonable supplementation of answers. This Court has held "seasonable supplementation" to mean soon after new information is known and far enough in advance of trial for the other side to prepare. Decisions addressing what constitutes a seasonable supplementation focus on the necessity to avoid unfair surprise at trial. See, e.g., Foster v. Noel, 715 So. 2d 174, 182-83 (Miss. 1998) (stating Rule 26 requires strict compliance to avoid unfair surprise); West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So. 2d 714, 721 (Miss. 1995) (affirming trial court's exclusion of certain expert testimony elicited at trial but not found in answers to interrogatories and stating seasonable supplementation requires supplementation when new information renders initial response inadequate); Motorola Communications & Elecs., Inc., v. Wilkerson, 555 So. 2d 713, 717-18 (Miss. 1989) (requiring seasonable disclosure give enough time to prepare for trial); Jones v. Hatchett, 504 So. 2d 198 (Miss. 1987) (stating purpose of our civil discovery procedures is to prevent trial by ambush).
. The trial court inquired and Haggerty's counsel admitted that they had inadvertently
failed to disclose to Foster's counsel any information regarding Haggerty's visit to Dr. Richardson, despite Foster's request for all information regarding doctor visits. The jury viewed Haggerty's scar and was able to determine for themselves the extent of permanent disfigurement. Therefore, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow the evidence regarding Dr. Richardson. Haggerty was not prejudiced by its exclusion; the jury still got the information she wished to convey through the doctor's report. Conversely, had the report been admitted into evidence, Foster would have been prejudiced. He would have been unable to depose or cross-examine Dr. Richardson regarding the contents of the report. In addition, though Foster did not object on this ground, the trial judge noted that Dr. Richardson would not be testifying at trial and any rendition of what he told Haggerty would have been hearsay.
. This assignment is without merit.
IV. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING HAGGERTY'S OBJECTION TO FOSTER'S CLOSING ARGUMENT ON ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION.
. In closing argument, Foster's counsel used paper cups to represent vehicles as he exhibited photographs C and D from Defendant's Exhibit 1. He argued that these photographs demonstrated that Haggerty had just entered the turn lane when the accident occurred because there was more damage to the left front side of her vehicle than to the right. He used the cups to represe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|