Dora Noffke, Appellant v. Jose Perez and Neyda Perez, Appellees (Alaska 2008)

Summary

The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the superior court improperly excluded medical and disability records after the parties had stipulated that foundation requirements were satisfied, and the exclusion was prejudicial to Noffke's defense concerning the Perezes' preexisting conditions. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported submitting comparative negligence to the jury, but affirmed the discovery order requiring Noffke's expert to produce tax records and the related discovery sanction. The court did not reach Noffke's claim concerning delayed entry of final judgment.

Holding

Exclusion of the Perezes' medical and disability records. The superior court erred by excluding the records on hearsay grounds. The parties' pretrial stipulation established the foundation and waived foundation and authenticity objections, although the records remained subject to relevance review, balancing for possible jury confusion, and appropriate redactions.

Denial of a continuance to obtain records custodians. The superior court erred and caused prejudicial harm by denying Noffke a one-business-day continuance to subpoena custodians and establish any foundation the court believed remained necessary.

Discovery of the expert's tax records and discovery sanction. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by ordering production of the expert's and his company's tax records under a confidentiality order or by imposing the $900 discovery sanction.

Comparative negligence. The superior court erred by directing a verdict for the Perezes on comparative negligence because reasonable jurors could find that Jose Perez was partly at fault for driving too quickly for wet conditions, construction, and the traffic pattern, even if he was below the posted speed limit.

Dora Noffke, Appellant v. Jose Perez and Neyda Perez, Appellees

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by