Crist v. Goody
| Decision Date | 05 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--277,71--277 |
| Citation | 31 Colo.App. 496,507 P.2d 478 |
| Parties | Emery L. CRIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret GOODY and Jean E. Goody, Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Joseph J. Branney, John A. Criswell, Englewood, for plaintiff-appellant.
White & Steele, R. Eric Peterson, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
Suit was brought against defendants, Margaret Goody and Jean E. Goody, for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident. Plaintiff, Emery L. Crist, appeals from an $8,000 judgment entered in his favor. A collision occurred at an intersection in Aurora, and the jury found that plaintiff's injuries were the result of defendant Margaret Goody's negligence. That negligence was imputed to Margaret's mother, Jean, under the family car doctrine.
During the trial defendants introduced into evidence certain 'surveillance movies' taken of plaintiff, and they also called the photographer as a witness. Plaintiff alleges that the court erred in allowing the witness to testify and in admitting the films, or in the alternative, in not granting plaintiff a mistrial or a continuance to obtain additional rebuttal testimony.
A pre-trial conference was held in this case under C.R.C.P. 16, augmented by local rule XVI of the trial court. By these rules parties are required to list prior to trial all witnesses and exhibits known to those parties. Defendants listed neither the films nor the surveillant through whose testimony the films were introduced. The films were taken prior to trial at the request of defendants and without plaintiff's knowledge. They show plaintiff carrying out his occupational duties in a manner tending to prove that plaintiff was not disabled to the extent claimed, if at all.
Defendants contend that 'surveillance movies' are purely impeachment evidence and do not have to be listed at the pretrial conference nor disclosed prior to trial. Although no discovery proceedings were used by plaintiff to determine the existence or non-existence of the films, defendants also contend that 'surveillance movies' are not discoverable under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. With both contentions we disagree.
We hold first that 'surveillance movies' are primarily substantive evidence and not totally or even basically impeachment evidence. Admittedly the line between impeachment evidence and substantive evidence is difficult to draw. See Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212. Any evidence submitted which conflicts, to any degree, with other prior evidence relating to the same allegation has a tendency to impeach the prior evidence or to weaken the credibility of the party who introduced it. That element of impeachment, however, does not change the fundamental purpose of 'surveillance movies' of providing substantive evidence which tends to prove or disprove a factual issue in the case. The films and introductory testimony in the case at hand were offered for the obvious purpose of affirmatively proving the absence of disability of plaintiff, or at least of showing a lesser degree of disability than that claimed by plaintiff, and any impeaching effect of the evidence is subservient to its substantive basis.
The purpose of the discovery rule, C.R.C.P. 26, patterned after Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, and the pre-trial procedure, C.R.C.P. 16, similarly patterned after Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, is to eliminate secrets and surprises at trial, simplify the issues, and lead to fair and just settlements without having to go to trial. Clark v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 328 F.2d 591; Clevite Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., D.C., 257 F.Supp. 50. See Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064. For these reasons the rules dealing with interrogatories, discovery, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dodson v. Persell
...Lines, Inc., 59 F.R.D. 148 (E.D.Pa.1973); Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (1965); Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo.App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972); Olszewski v. Howell, 253 A.2d 77 (Del.Super.1969); Boldt v. Sanders, 261 Minn. 160, 111 N.W.2d 225 (1961); Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N......
-
Great Western Sugar Co. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., s. 80CA0081
...erroneous. Therefore, we find no error in the exclusion of parts of the expert's testimony. Also, KN's reliance on Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo.App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972) is misplaced. There, this court held that a trial court has discretion to exclude evidence which was not properly identifi......
-
Cleverock Energy Corp. v. Trepel
...pretrial order mechanism I. e., the narrowing of issues to facilitate an efficient trial and to avoid surprise. See Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo.App. 496, 507 P.2d 478, 480 (1972). (a) First Counterclaim. The Defendant Trepel contends that the Plaintiff is liable . . . as a result of the Plainti......
-
Ricci v. Davis, 79
...pre-trial discovery intended to facilitate and simplification of issues and avoid surprises at trial. See Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo.App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972). There is, therefore, little doubt that it was within the Panel chairman's discretion to grant Ricci's The question, however, is wh......
-
Table of Cases
...848 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1988), § 9:92.1 Crinkley v. Holiday Inns, Inc. , 844 F.2d 156, 164 (4th Cir. 1988), § 10:720.10 Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo.App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972), § 9:140 Curtis v. M&S Petroleum, Inc. , 174 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir. 1999), § 9:530.4 D’Andrea v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.......
-
Pretrial Procedures
...this reason, surveillance evidence must be disclosed as trial exhibits pursuant to local practice and pretrial orders. Crist v. Goody , 31 Colo.App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972). Some courts hold that surveillance evidence and materials are absolutely protected from discovery by the work produc......
-
When Settlement Fails-Commencing the Lawsuit
...Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (1965). CAL. — Suezaki v. Superior Court, 373 P.2d 432 (Cal. Ct. App, 1962). COLO. — Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo. App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972). DEL. — Hoey vs. Hawkins, 332 A.2d 403 (Del. Super. Ct. 1975) FLA. — Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980), op......
-
When settlement fails-commencing the lawsuit
...Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (1965). CAL. — Suezaki v. Superior Court, 373 P.2d 432 (Cal. Ct. App, 1962). COLO. — Crist v. Goody, 31 Colo. App. 496, 507 P.2d 478 (1972). DEL. — Hoey vs. Hawkins, 332 A.2d 403 (Del. Super. Ct. 1975) FLA. — Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980), op......