Larry Hansen v. Matthew Roberts
299 P.3d 781
Idaho2013Background
- Hansen (plaintiff) and Roberts (defendant) were involved in a car accident; Hansen injured, Roberts vehicle damaged.
- Two cases consolidated; Hansen sued for injuries, Roberts for vehicle damage; tried October 19, 2010, continued to December 15, 2010.
- Roberts underwent a liver transplant during trial; testimony was videotaped; objections recorded for later ruling.
- Court allowed Roberts’s experts: Scott Kimbrough (accident reconstructionist) and John Droge (biomechanical engineer) to testify.
- Jury found 90% fault to Hansen, 10% to Roberts; Roberts awarded $3,399.14 in damages; Hansen appealed.
- Key rulings: (a) admission of expert testimony, (b) waiver of deposition objections, (c) voir dire/insurance limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of expert testimony was proper | Hansen: untimely disclosures; experts invade jury’s province; reliability lacking. | Roberts: scheduling orders allowed discretion; disclosed despite deadlines; foundation adequate. | No abuse; experts admitted under discretion. |
| Waiver of deposition objections preserved | Hansen did not waive; objections timely and timely transcript unavailable. | Waiver occurred by not raising at hearing; transcript not requested by Hansen. | Waiver proper; objections未 preserved. |
| Limitation on insurance references during voir dire | Hansen tried to question jurors about insurance affiliations; error not preserved. | Objections focused on occupations; preservation lacking; limit was reasonable. | Not plain error; limitation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Perry v. Magic Valley Reg’l Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 46 (2000) (prejudicial vs probative balancing in evidence rulings)
- State v. Bitz, 93 Idaho 239 (1969) (scope of voir dire discretion)
- Slack v. Kelleher, 140 Idaho 916 (2004) (preservation of objections; continuing objections guidance)
- Hobbs v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 62 Idaho 58 (1940) (specific grounds required for objections)
- State v. Pearce, 146 Idaho 241 (2008) (I.R.E. 702; expert testimony may assist but must be admissible)
- State v. Ellington, 151 Idaho 53 (2011) (expert testimony not admissible if based on common sense conclusions)