Background
Jessica Stout rented a residential unit from Loretta Cassity. After prior reports of ceiling dripping and leaks, Cassity’s son inspected a kitchen-ceiling leak following a heavy storm and poked a hole in the ceiling with a broom handle. Shortly after he left, part of the ceiling collapsed onto Stout. The parties disputed the extent of the leaks, warnings, falling debris, and Stout’s injuries.
Stout sued Cassity individually and as trustee. Before trial, Stout disclosed contractor R.J. Koning as an expert on the ceiling collapse and produced a two-page document summarizing his investigation and conclusions. Cassity did not depose him before trial, but successfully obtained rulings that sharply confined his testimony to that document. The jury found Cassity not liable.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed and remanded for a new trial. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding major portions of Koning’s testimony, including opinions bearing on causation. Cassity had timely notice that Koning would testify, did not timely pursue proper expert discovery, and then deposed him during a trial break. Any claimed surprise was therefore self-inflicted, not unfair prejudice warranting exclusion under Binger.
The court also held that Stout was entitled to a juror interview based on sworn allegations that a juror had concealed her prior experience as a landlord during voir dire. That information was material in this landlord-tenant case, the nondisclosure was not attributable to Stout’s lack of diligence, and omission of the juror’s address did not justify summary denial without notice and a hearing. But the new trial made that issue moot as a matter of relief.
Key Takeaways
- A party cannot claim unfair surprise from expert opinions it could have discovered through timely, proper discovery.
- A short expert disclosure document did not, on this record, require disclosure of every trial opinion.
- Sworn allegations of a juror’s material nondisclosure during voir dire can warrant a postverdict juror interview.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the use of expert-disclosure objections as a substitute for timely discovery. Where an expert is timely identified and the opposing party declines available discovery opportunities, excluding central testimony may be harmful reversible error.
It also reinforces that jurors must answer material voir dire questions fully, particularly when their undisclosed experience could affect a party’s use of challenges.