Guzman

Guzman v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 4th 705·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1048·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 585·93 Daily Journal DAR 13321·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7826
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 20, 1993B075160California766 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

When a trial court orders a new damages trial, may the plaintiff designate new expert witnesses? Our answer is yes. Accordingly we grant petitioner’s application for a writ of mandate.

Procedural Background

On March 20, 1989, petitioner, while detained by a Bargains Unlimited employee, was injured. He sued real parties in interest (RPI) for assault, battery, and negligence.

Prior to trial, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034, the parties exchanged “information concerning each other’s expert trial witnesses.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (a).) Petitioner designated two experts, Drs. Mark Greenspan and Karl Epstein, both orthopedic surgeons. Thereafter, petitioner moved to augment his expert witness list but the trial court denied the motion.

Trial began September 18, 1992. Petitioner called his treating physician but did not call either designated expert, the orthopedic surgeons. The jury returned a verdict for petitioner: $650,000 reduced 10 percent by petitioner’s negligence to the sum of $585,000.

On December 4, 1992, the trial court conditionally granted RPI’s motion for a new trial. If petitioner accepted a reduction of compensatory damages to…

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.