George E. Morabit v. Dennis Hoag
2013 R.I. LEXIS 155
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Neighbor dispute: Hoag developed his land abutting Morabit’s 53-acre woodland; a boundary stone wall and trees on Morabit’s land were substantially altered/removed between ~1999–2003.
- Morabit sued (2005) under §34-20-1 (timber/tree removal damages) and statutes regarding theft of historic stone walls (§11-41-32 and §9-1-2).
- At trial plaintiff presented: a geology professor (Thorson) on stone-wall origins/destruction, an arborist (Largess) using the Purdue method to value ~190 missing trees (~$439,600), and an aerial-photo expert (Steere) dating the clearing.
- Trial court excluded Thorson’s stone-wall expertise as insufficiently established/peer-reviewed, denied a last-minute deposition of a key percipient (Walker), and refused to allow amendment to plead trespass.
- The trial justice granted JMOL for defendant on both counts, reasoning plaintiff failed to prove tree value at time of injury and that no proper measure of damages existed for the wall; motion for new trial denied.
- Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a new trial, finding (inter alia) erroneous exclusion of Thorson and that the trial justice improperly weighed expert evidence on tree valuation under Rule 50.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of last-minute deposition of percipient witness (Walker) | Walker was the only percipient who could identify Hoag’s conduct; emergency deposition was justified | Plaintiff had ample pretrial opportunity to depose Walker; should have preserved testimony earlier | Trial court’s denial not central to reversal; main holdings focused elsewhere (court remanded for new trial largely on other errors) |
| Exclusion of Professor Thorson as expert in "stone wall science" | Thorson’s geology-based stone-wall methods were reliable and admissible; his exclusion prejudiced plaintiff | Methods lacked peer-reviewed support/acceptance; novel science requiring gatekeeping | Exclusion was an abuse of discretion: stone-wall opinions rested on established geology principles and Thorson’s credentials; admissibility and weight were for the jury, so new trial required on the wall claim |
| Denial to amend pleadings (Rule 15(b)) to conform to evidence / add trespass theory | Amendment should be allowed to conform pleadings to evidence and permit equitable relief or trespass claim | Even with amendment, plaintiff lacked proved damages for wall; equitable relief inappropriate | Denial tied to prior exclusion and JMOL; because exclusion of Thorson prejudiced plaintiff, the denial contributed to reversible error and remand is required |
| JMOL on tree-destruction claim (§34-20-1) and denial of new trial | Largess’s Purdue-method valuation was a reasonable, probative estimate; date-of-injury timing and numeration were factual issues for jury | Valuation lacked proof of replacement cost at date of injury; methodology speculative; damages may exceed fair market value (windfall) | Grant of JMOL was improper: trial justice invaded jury province by weighing credibility and assuming facts (e.g., timing of nursery price calls, exact loss date). New trial required; Court provided guidance on permissible valuation approaches (diminution in value vs. restoration cost; consider "reason personal" and reasonableness caps). |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarzia v. State, 44 A.3d 1245 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for JMOL)
- DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) (factors for admissibility of novel scientific expert testimony)
- Owens v. Silvia, 838 A.2d 881 (R.I. 2003) (gatekeeper limits; do not exclude expert where jury can weigh novelty)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (admissibility framework for scientific expert evidence)
- Tortolano v. DiFilippo, 349 A.2d 48 (R.I. 1975) (damages assessed as of date of injury)
- Gallucci v. Humbyrd, 709 A.2d 1059 (R.I. 1998) (abuse of discretion where trial court’s rigid application of admissibility test usurps jury role)
- Morra v. Harrop, 791 A.2d 472 (R.I. 2002) (deference to trial justice’s exercise of discretion on expert admissibility)