Summers v. A. L. Gilbert Co.
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1101, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 162 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony on issues of law is inadmissible because it usurps the trial court's exclusive function to instruct the jury on the applicable law and invades the jury's province to apply that law to the facts.
Facts:
- Jerry Lee Summers was killed when his pickup truck was struck by a truck and trailer combination owned by Maurice Cotton, Sr., doing business as Cotton Trucking (Cotton).
- At the time of the accident, Cotton's truck, driven by Oswaldo Comacho, was hauling corn for A. L. Gilbert Company (Gilbert).
- The collision occurred after another vehicle pulled in front of Cotton's truck, causing it to swerve, strike Summers's vehicle, and overturn one of its trailers onto Summers's truck.
- A post-accident investigation by the California Highway Patrol revealed numerous, pre-existing, and visible safety defects on Cotton's truck, including inoperative brakes, a rusted safety cable, and a brake air line repaired with duct tape.
- Cotton had a history of numerous safety violations and had its carrier permit suspended or revoked at least five times for failing to provide proof of financial responsibility.
- Gilbert had hired Cotton for approximately 10 years but had a policy of not performing maintenance on contractors' trucks and never checked Cotton's safety record or licensing status beyond the initial hiring.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Gayle Summers, on behalf of herself and her children (plaintiffs), filed a wrongful death action in a state trial court against multiple defendants, including Maurice Cotton (Cotton) and A. L. Gilbert Company (Gilbert).
- Prior to trial, most defendants settled, leaving Cotton and Gilbert as the primary remaining defendants.
- During the trial, the court permitted plaintiffs' expert, attorney Ellis Anderson, to testify over Gilbert's objections that his opinions constituted inadmissible legal conclusions.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Cotton negligent and finding Gilbert liable for negligently hiring and retaining an incompetent contractor.
- The jury awarded plaintiffs over $3.1 million in total damages, which were apportioned and reduced by prior settlements, resulting in a net judgment of $1,728,189 against Cotton and Gilbert.
- Gilbert (as appellant) filed a timely appeal to the intermediate appellate court, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting Anderson's expert testimony on questions of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit prejudicial error by admitting expert testimony from a lawyer on issues of law, such as the existence of a nondelegable duty and the ultimate legal liability of a party?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiseman, J.
Yes. Admitting expert testimony from a lawyer on issues of law is prejudicial error because it usurps the role of the judge and invades the province of the jury. It is the exclusive responsibility of the trial court to instruct jurors on the applicable law, and it is the jury's duty to apply that law to the facts. The court reasoned that allowing a lawyer to testify as an expert on legal doctrines, such as nondelegable duty and respondeat superior, and to opine on the ultimate legal liability of a party, improperly presents legal argument as evidence, cloaked in the authority of an expert. This creates a substantial danger that the jury will defer to the expert's view of the law rather than the judge's instructions. The court found that the expert witness, Anderson, essentially delivered the plaintiff's closing argument from the witness stand, which is an impermissible use of expert testimony. The error was prejudicial because the evidence on Gilbert's liability for negligent hiring was a close question, and Anderson's powerful, inadmissible opinions likely swayed the jury's verdict.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the fundamental principle that segregates the roles of the judge, jury, and witnesses. It establishes a clear prohibition against using expert witnesses, particularly lawyers, to instruct the jury on legal standards or to offer conclusions on how the law should be applied to the facts of the case. The decision serves as a significant check on trial tactics, preventing attorneys from introducing what is effectively legal argument disguised as expert testimony. For future cases, this precedent solidifies the trial judge's gatekeeping role in excluding expert opinions that consist of legal conclusions, thereby protecting the integrity of the jury's fact-finding process and the court's authority as the sole source of legal instruction.
Unlock the full brief for Summers v. A. L. Gilbert Co.