DePalma

DePalma v. Rodriguez

Good Law
151 Cal. App. 4th 159·59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 479
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 2007B190062California722 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

Plaintiff William DePalma sued defendant Sonia Rodriguez for personal injuries allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident. The jury’s special verdict found that defendant was negligent, but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing any harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff contends he is entitled to a new trial because the court abused its discretion in allowing defendant’s biomechanic expert to testify at trial to opinions beyond those he had testified to at his deposition.

The general substance of the expert witness’s opinion testimony at his deposition was that the nature of the low-speed accident was such that one would not expect a person of normal health to have suffered “any” injury from the accident in question. Thus, we find that the expert did not exceed the scope of his deposition testimony when he opined at trial that one would not expect the accident to result in the specific knee and shoulder injuries complained of because the “forces are very comparable” to what would be experienced during normal “routine activities,” and there was also “no expectation of knee contact.” In any event, it is not reasonably probable that a more favorable result…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.