Osborne v. Todd Farm Service
202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 84
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Osborne, a stable worker, fell 11 feet from a hay bale at Ojai Valley School and sued hay supplier Berrington and seller Todd Farm Service for her injuries.
- Todd purchased hay from multiple suppliers, commingled bales in storage, and did not track supplier identity per bale; defendant Todd stipulated it delivered the bale at issue.
- Osborne failed to timely designate expert witnesses; the trial court struck her supplemental expert designation, precluding expert opinion tying the bale to Berrington.
- Respondents' in limine motions excluded (1) Osborne's opinion that hay appearance identified geographic origin and (2) hearsay statements or delivery-ticket contents purporting to identify Berrington as the source.
- Despite repeated rulings and admonitions, plaintiff's counsel repeatedly elicited and argued that the bale came from Berrington and that Osborne saw a delivery receipt; the court found flagrant, repeated violations and dismissed the action with prejudice as a terminating sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plaintiff's opinion that bale originated from Berrington | Osborne: her 20 years' experience let her identify origin by hay color/texture | Respondents: opinion is expert testimony not timely disclosed or inadmissible lay opinion | Court: Excluded — not timely designated as expert and lay opinion not rationally based/helpful under Evid. Code §800 |
| Admissibility of delivery-person statements and testimony about delivery ticket | Osborne: delivery person told her bales were from Berrington and she saw a receipt identifying Berrington | Respondents: statements and ticket are hearsay and unauthenticated; no agency or authorization for admission against Berrington | Court: Excluded as hearsay and unauthenticated; not admissible against Berrington or Todd for proving source |
| Whether terminating sanction (dismissal with prejudice) was an abuse of discretion | Osborne: dismissal was hasty; lesser sanctions should have been used; in limine rulings effectively deprived essential evidence | Respondents: counsel repeatedly and flagrantly violated clear court orders after multiple warnings | Court: Affirmed dismissal — trial court did not abuse discretion given repeated, intentional violations and prejudice to both defendants |
| Dismissal as to both defendants (multi-defendant sanction) | Osborne: sanction improperly applied to both; misconduct concerned proof against Berrington | Respondents: misconduct prejudiced both; allowing one defendant to remain would unfairly shift juror suspicion | Court: Proper to dismiss as to both; no requirement misconduct be tied to a single defendant when prejudice affects all |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pigage, 112 Cal.App.4th 1359 (2003) (attorney must follow court orders)
- Fairfax v. Lords, 138 Cal.App.4th 1019 (2006) (untimely expert designation precludes testimony)
- Zellerino v. Brown, 235 Cal.App.3d 1097 (1991) (expert designation and exclusion principles)
- Jambazian v. Borden, 25 Cal.App.4th 836 (1994) (limits on lay witness offering specialized opinions)
- WT Grant Co. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.3d 284 (1972) (hearsay and admission foundations)
- Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 155 Cal.App.4th 736 (2007) (terminating sanctions for pervasive misconduct)
- Sauer v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.3d 213 (1987) (trial court's credibility findings and inherent sanctioning power)