Long v. Harding

Summary

The Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals reviewed a personal-injury judgment arising from an automobile accident. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause or by allowing a defense medical expert to testify despite alleged discovery deficiencies. The court also addressed the jury's limited damages award to Jeffrey Long and rejection of Karen Long's loss-of-consortium claim.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the challenge for cause because Juror 929's statements reflected skepticism about fraudulent or exaggerated claims, not an inability to be fair and impartial or an unwillingness to follow the law.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to exclude Dr. Wunder's testimony because his timely disclosed reports stated his opinions and their bases, the Longs did not obtain an order compelling production or otherwise timely seek enforcement of their discovery requests, and the expert did not present new or different opinions at trial.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by splitting costs between Karen and Harding because Karen was not the prevailing party on her separate and independent loss-of-consortium claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to excuse prospective Juror 929 for cause based on alleged bias against personal-injury plaintiffs.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to exclude the defense expert's testimony as a discovery sanction when the expert's reports disclosed his opinions and their bases but some referenced materials were not produced.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Civ.R. 54(D) by splitting costs between Karen Long and Michael Harding after the jury found for Harding on Karen's separate loss-of-consortium claim.

Disposition

affirmed