Olson

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Charles Olson sued defendant Mary Price for personal injuries allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident. Defendant admitted she was negligent, but denied the low-speed accident caused any harm to plaintiff. The jury returned a special verdict in favor of defendant, finding her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries. On appeal, plaintiff contends he is entitled to a new trial because the court abused its discretion in allowing defendant’s medical expert to testify to opinions that were not disclosed before trial. We agree. The purpose of expert discovery is to give fair notice of what an expert will say at trial. At his deposition, defendant’s expert affirmed that he had stated all opinions he intended to give at trial, and agreed to notify plaintiff, prior to trial, if he formed any other opinions. Despite these assurances, on the last day of trial, defendant’s expert testified to a new opinion—formed 10 days earlier—that had not been disclosed to plaintiff. The trial court allowed the expert’s testimony over plaintiff’s vigorous objections. This error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we will reverse…