Solis v. Burningham Enterprises Inc.
2015 UT App 11
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Solis appeals after a jury verdict favoring Burningham Enterprises and Davis in a vehicle collision case arising from a 2010 I-15 construction zone crash.
- Solis initially disclosed UHP officers as fact witnesses and later designated an accident reconstructionist, but did not designate Urban as an expert.
- During Urban’s deposition, Solis explored his accident reconstruction work, including a claim that the Burningham truck left a 248-foot skid mark.
- Defendants moved to exclude Urban’s opinion as undisclosed expert testimony and to redact references linking Urban to the skid-mark conclusion.
- The trial court excluded Urban’s expert testimony and the unredacted diagram, while allowing some related testimony.
- At trial, Solis argued the skid mark indicated speeding by the Burningham truck; Defendants offered opposing expert testimony, and the jury ruled in Defendants’ favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Solis violated rule 26(a)(3) by failing to designate Urban as an expert | Solis asserts substance over form informed disclosure of Urban’s opinion | Rule 26 requires explicit expert designation; failure to designate mandates exclusion | Court held Solis failed to designate Urban; exclusion affirmed |
| Whether exclusion of Urban’s testimony was an abuse of discretion | Cross-examination at deposition made Urban's opinions known | Harmless or good-cause exception not met; prejudice to defendants | Court held exclusion proper; not deemed harmless |
| Whether the trial court properly denied extending discovery deadlines | Trial court should extend deadlines to amend expert designations | Discretion to manage case timing; no good cause shown | Court affirmed denial of extension; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (Utah 2006) (failure to designate treating physicians as experts not cured by fact-witness disclosure)
- Brussow v. Webster, 258 P.3d 615 (Utah 2011) (expert designation requirement for Rule 26(a)(3)(A))
- Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc., 332 P.3d 969 (Utah 2014) (disclosures of experts must comply with Rule 26(a)(3)(A))
- Ladd v. Bowers Trucking, Inc., 264 P.3d 752 (Utah 2011) (treating physicians as experts requires proper designation)
- Warenski v. Advanced RV Supply, 257 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2011) (designating a fact witness as expert triggers separate designation process)
- Townhomes at Pointe Meadows Owners Ass’n v. Pointe Meadows Townhomes, LLC, 329 P.3d 815 (Utah 2014) (trial court discretion in extending discovery deadlines)
- Callister v. Snowbird Corp., 337 P.3d 1044 (Utah 2014) (case management and discovery/disclosure standards)
- Dahl v. Harrison, 265 P.3d 139 (Utah 2011) (sanctions for failure to disclose expert testimony)