Martin v. Benson
| Decision Date | 09 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 119A97.,119A97. |
| Citation | 500 S.E.2d 664 |
| Parties | Jannett J. MARTIN and Richard W. Martin v. John Michael BENSON and Industrial Electric, Inc. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Mary K. Nicholson and Joseph A. Williams, Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellees.
Frazier, Frazier & Mahler, L.L.P. by Torin L. Fury, Greensboro, for defendant-appellants.
Tharrington Smith, L.L.P. by Michael Crowell, Raleigh, on behalf of the American Psychological Association, the North Carolina Psychological Association, and the National Academy of Neuropsychology, amici curiae.
Bailey, Patterson, Caddell, Hart & Bailey, P.A. by Allen A. Bailey, Charlotte, on behalf of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Defendants appeal a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court in a personal injury case and awarding a new trial to the plaintiffs based on the trial court's decision to allow a neuropsychologist to testify regarding the medical causation of plaintiff Jannett Martin's (herein plaintiff) impairments.
On 28 November 1990, a truck driven by defendant John Michael Benson and owned by defendant Industrial Electric, Inc., crossed the median and collided with an automobile driven by plaintiff. The parties entered into stipulations that defendants' negligence caused the collision and that the amount of plaintiff's medical bills was $100,041.22.
On 27 March 1995, two weeks before the trial began, defendants moved to have plaintiff examined by Dr. Elizabeth Gamboa, a neuropsychologist, for the purpose of updating information on plaintiff's condition. The motion was allowed. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Gamboa's report and testimony. The trial court denied the motion and permitted Dr. Gamboa to testify. At trial the parties presented numerous expert and lay witnesses as to the proximate causation of plaintiff's injuries and plaintiff's damages. Plaintiffs presented testimony from Dr. James U. Adelman, a specialist in neurology, and from Dr. Gary Hoover, a psychologist. When Dr. Gamboa testified for defendant, plaintiffs did not object to her testimony. The jury found that defendants' negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and awarded her $50,000 in damages.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion in limine and allowing Dr. Gamboa to testify. The Court of Appeals agreed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tutt
...(2005) (per curiam) (in light of discussion below the trial judgment was on 20 May 2002, before the amendment); Martin v. Benson, 348 N.C. 684, 685, 500 S.E.2d 664, 665 (1998); N.C. R.App. P. 10(b)(1). Rulings on motions in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change at trial, de......
-
State v. Hayes
...of evidence if the [movant] fails to further object to that evidence at the time it is offered at trial." Martin v. Benson, ___ N.C. ___, ___, 500 S.E.2d 664, 665 (1998) (quoting Conaway, 339 N.C. at 521, 453 S.E.2d at 845-46). We cannot discern from that opinion or the opinion issued by th......
-
Maldjian v. Bloomquist
...of evidence if the movant fails to further object to that evidence at the time it is offered at trial." Martin v. Benson , 348 N.C. 684, 685, 500 S.E.2d 664, 665 (1998) (per curiam) (citation omitted). In order to preserve for appeal an evidentiary issue raised in a motion in limine , the p......
-
Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision of Colorado, Inc.
...for the practice of medicine. See, e.g., Martin v. Benson, 125 N.C.App. 330, 481 S.E.2d 292, 296 (N.C.App.1997), rev'd, 348 N.C. 684, 500 S.E.2d 664 (N.C.1998) (issue not properly preserved for appeal). The majority of jurisdictions, however, have found that neuropsychologists may, with the......