133 Conn. App. 420
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Emilio and Maria D'Ascanio sued for injuries from a defective stand-up forklift designed, manufactured, and distributed by defendants.
- Court bifurcated trial to address liability first; plaintiffs relied on expert Ebersole on defect theory.
- During trial, plaintiffs introduced a videotape of a Toyota forklift with an electronic directional display; defendants objected to its relevance and accuracy.
- Court admitted the videotape, with limitations, but later found issues with its origin/model parity and the plaintiff's proffer, and the videotape was ultimately deemed out of the case.
- Following revelations, the court struck Ebersole's testimony and precluded him from testifying further, citing deception/sloppiness regarding the videotape.
- Plaintiffs moved for continuance/mistrial to substitute another liability expert; court denied, and the trial proceeded without a liability expert, leading to a directed verdict for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking Ebersole's testimony and precluding further testimony | Ebersole's prior testimony remained valid; strike was overly harsh and prejudicial | Ebersole deceived the court about the videotape; sanctions were warranted | Abuse of discretion; court erred in striking testimony |
| Whether the directed verdict was improper because plaintiffs were deprived of liability expert testimony | Sanctioned loss of expert testimony prejudiced plaintiffs on defect | Without reliable expert on defect, defendant should prevail | Directed verdict inappropriate; remand necessary |
| Whether lesser sanctions (curative instruction or mistrial) were available and appropriate | Curative instruction or mistrial could cure prejudice | Sanctions already warranted and closer remedies were insufficient | Court should have employed lesser sanction; not justified to strike all testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225 (2009) (trial court's inherent power to sanction and exclude expert testimony)
- Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 298 Conn. 371 (2010) (abuse of discretion review standard; strong deference to trial court)
- Pietraroia v. Northeast Utilities, 254 Conn. 60 (2000) (policy favoring trial on the merits and avoiding draconian sanctions)
- Porter v. State, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (gatekeeping and reliability considerations for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (general gatekeeping principle for expert testimony)
- Maher v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 269 Conn. 154 (2004) (credibility and reliability considerations in evaluating expert testimony)