Morra v. Harrop

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed a medical negligence action arising from the suicide of the plaintiff's father while hospitalized under the defendant psychiatrist's care. The court held that the trial justice abused discretion by striking the plaintiff's expert testimony concerning the manner of death and by denying a continuance to clarify that testimony. The court also explained the proper use of continuing objections and remanded the case for a new trial.

Holdings

1. An expert need not use talismanic phrases such as "strong probability" or avoid the word "possibility" if the testimony, viewed as a whole, is expressed with some degree of positiveness and has substantial probative value. Dr. Sharp's testimony that suicide was the only possibility, together with his exclusion of homicide, accident, and disease, was sufficiently definite and should not have been stricken.
2. The trial justice abused his discretion by striking the plaintiff's expert testimony in its entirety, because the testimony adequately addressed the manner of death and the plaintiff's medical-negligence claims.
3. When exclusion of expert testimony leaves a party fatally vulnerable to judgment as a matter of law, the trial justice should grant a reasonable short continuance to permit clarification or allow another witness, or consider treating the Rule 50 motion as an involuntary nonsuit under Rule 50(a)(3).
4. A continuing objection preserves an issue for appellate review without requiring repeated objections, but it does not reserve admissibility for later determination or authorize a party to move to strike an entire line of testimony after the evidence has been admitted and the opposing party has relied on it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by striking the plaintiff's expert testimony because the expert used the word "possibility" in describing the manner of death.
2. Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by denying the plaintiff a short continuance to clarify the expert's testimony after striking it.
3. Whether the defendant's continuing objection authorized a mid-trial motion to strike testimony that had been admitted over objection.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded