 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hollister v. Gallion2/19/2002
The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in the defendants' favor in plaintiffs' personal injury action seeking recovery for injuries Larkann Hollister sustained when she fell off a mule during a packing trip led by defendant William Gallion. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the trial court.
FACTS
William Gallion operates Rocking Diamond G Outfitters, a horse and mule packing outfit that conducts trips near Crystal Mountain. Gallion volunteered to take Dick and Larkann Hollister and others on a mule trip they had purchased.
During the trip, Mrs. Hollister fell off the mule she was riding and sustained injuries. She and her husband sued Gallion, his wife, and Rocking Diamond G Outfitters, alleging that her injuries were due to the defendants' negligence, particularly Gallion's negligence with regard to the crupper strap on the saddle Mrs. Hollister was using. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The court denied the Hollisters' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
DISCUSSION
Admission of William Gallion's testimony
Mrs. Hollister was directly behind Gallion when she fell off the mule, and Gallion did not see her fall. After she fell, Gallion turned and saw her on the ground. He dismounted his horse and went back to examine Mrs. Hollister and the mule. He saw that the saddle had moved to the right of its normal position. Gallion's counsel asked Gallion: 'Do you have an understanding of how the saddle got the way it looked to you?' The Hollisters' counsel objected on the ground that the testimony lacked a foundation because Gallion did not see Mrs. Hollister fall. The court overruled the objection. Gallion testified that the saddle's position was the result of Mrs. Hollister's losing her balance and falling off the mule to the right. We review the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion.
The Hollisters argue that the trial court erred by allowing Gallion to testify about the cause of the accident because it was not within his personal knowledge and was therefore inadmissible under ER 602. 'A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.'
The defendants argue Gallion's testimony is governed by ER 701. 'If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.'
'ER 701 is a rule of discretion and is intended to emphasize what a witness knows rather than how the witness expresses his or her knowledge. . . . The rule assumes a witness will testify to observations but permits the witness to resort to inferences and opinions when such testimony will be helpful to the jury.'
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Gallion to testify about causation even though he did not observe Mrs. Hollister falling from the mule. Gallion's opinion was rationally based on his experience as the operator of a mule packing outfit and on his observations of the scene immediately after Mrs. Hollister landed on the ground. The trial court allowed Gallion's testimony to help the jury understand a fact in issue. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Gallion's testimony.
Jury's verdict
The jury answered 'no' to the verdict question about whether Gallion was negligent. The Hollisters argue that thi
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|