Banks v. Hill
| Docket Number: | 2006-IA-00047-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2008 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Failure to designate experts - M.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)(I) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J., without separate written opinion. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-21-2005 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: the plaintiff’s attorney failed properly and timely to designate experts. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered that the plaintiff would be allowed to call her experts to rebut the defendants’ case-in-chief. Case Number: 2003-7 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ephen L. Banks & Jimmy Oglesby d/b/a Oglesby Farms |
BRADLEY FAREL HATHAWAY,
LAWRENCE DOUGLAS WADE, JR.,
WILLIAM O. LUCKETT,
JENNIFER LYN MILLER BERMEL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Curlie Darnell Hill | George F. Hollowell, Jr. | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Failure to designate experts - M.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)(I) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In this automobile-accident case, the plaintiff’s attorney failed properly and timely to designate experts. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered that the plaintiff would be allowed to call her experts to rebut the defendants’ case-in-chief. The defendants filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal, which the Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Discovery of “facts known and opinions held by experts” is governed by M.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)(I) which states, in pertinent part: “A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial . . . .” For purposes of today’s case, the key phrase in the rule is “expects to call.” The rule does not require the disclosure of an expert a party does not expect to call at trial. After the trial court denied the plaintiff’s request to designate experts out of time and sustained the defendants’ motion to strike the late designation of plaintiff’s experts, the plaintiff argued that she should nevertheless be allowed to call her experts to rebut opinions provided by the defendants’ experts. The trial court ordered that the plaintiff would be allowed to call experts to rebut the defendants’ case-in-chief. The practical effect of this ruling – if allowed to stand – is that the plaintiff would be allowed to call an undisclosed expert to provide undisclosed opinions to rebut opinions which were fully disclosed by the defendants in discovery, and of which the plaintiff was fully aware. It would be inherently unfair and a violation of our rules of civil procedure for the plaintiff – who consistently has ignored the rules and violated the discovery deadlines – to appear at trial with experts whose opinions have not been properly disclosed to rebut evidence offered in the defendants’ case-in-chief. This holding should not be read always to prohibit a party from calling undisclosed experts to offer opinions in rebuttal. However, such circumstances should be a rarity, since all experts and expert opinions should be disclosed prior to trial, eliminating the prospect of unexpected opinions at trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
