Kenneth Boehm v. Shawn Willis (Vermont 2006)

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Boehm's motion for a new trial. It held that the trial court properly admitted the defense expert's deposition because the expert was unavailable under the applicable deposition rule, and that the challenges to his qualifications, examination, and records went to the weight rather than admissibility of his testimony. The court also held that the verdict finding no proximate injury was reasonably supported by the evidence.

Holding

Admission of deposition testimony. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding that the defense expert was unavailable and admitting his deposition testimony under the rule permitting deposition use when the witness is absent and cannot be procured by process or other reasonable means.

Admissibility of expert testimony. The trial court properly declined to exclude the expert's testimony because the objections to his specialty, the length of his examination, and the medical records he reviewed concerned the weight to be given to his opinion rather than its admissibility.

Challenge to verdict and denial of new trial. The trial court properly denied a new trial because the verdict could be justified on a reasonable view of the evidence and the plaintiff did not overcome the presumption supporting the verdict.

Summary

Holding

Cited by