 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaught v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation9/6/2001
his failure to identify himself as an expert at trial. The court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting defendant from testifying as an expert witness.
Our finding that defendant had the duty seasonably to identify himself as an expert witness and that the court did not abuse its discretion by forbidding defendant from testifying as an expert necessarily means that defendant's argument that the court erred by failing to grant a new trial must be rejected on grounds that no error occurred below.
We also reject defendant's argument that the application of Loc.R. 21.1 violates his right to a jury trial. The application of Loc.R. 21.1 has been too well-established to admit any serious argument that sanctions imposed under the rule would be unconstitutional.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants her costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN PRESIDING JUDGE
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS. ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
|