Docket Number


Document Type

Brief of Appellee

Publication Date



POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT EXERCISED APPROPRIATE DISCRETION IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE IN CHIEF WHICH ASTILL IMPROPERLY SAVED FOR REBUTTAL 11 A. Astill Should Have Presented Her Expert Witnesses During Her Case In Chief 11 B. Evidence Of Causation Should Be Presented In Plaintiff's Case In Chief To Establish A Prima Facia Case of Negligence 13 C. The Trial Court's Exclusion Of Astill's Rebuttal Witnesses Was A Case Management Decision Within The Trial Court's Discretion 14 D. Astill Has Not Shown Any Prejudicial Harm Or That A Different Verdict Would Have Resulted 15 E. Astill Has Failed To Marshall The Evidence 17 POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESSES DURING OTHER WITNESSES' TESTIMONY IS WITHIN ITS DISCRETION 18 A. Astill's Cited Authority Does Not Support Her Position The Trial Court Erred in Excluding Expert Witness From The Courtroom 19 B. Any Harm To Astill From The Exclusion Could Have Been Avoided If Astill's Counsel Had Taken Knight's Deposition Before Trial. . . . . 2 0 i


Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.
John Edward Hansen; Todd D. Weiler; Scalley & Reading; Paul S. Felt; Ray, Quinney & Nebeker; Attorneys for Appellant.
Samuel King, David J Friel; attorneys for appellee.


Public record document (some rights may be reserved).

Included in

Law Commons