Christopher Bittola and Danna Bittola, Individually and on behalf of their minor child, Alexander Bittola v. Nekita Harmon, Old Republic Insurance Company, Gelco Corporation and 3M Company ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                            STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
    CHRISTOPHER                 BITTOLA AND                                                                              NO.       2021       CW     1260
    DANNA       BITTOLA,                  INDIVIDUALLY
    AND ON            BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR
    CHILD,           ALEXANDER                 BITTOLA
    VERSUS
    NEKITA            HARMON,             OLD        REPUBLIC                                                               JANUARY        21,       2022
    INSURANCE             COMPANY,                  GELCO
    CORPORATION AND                            3M COMPANY
    In   Re:              Christopher                         Bittola,                  applying               for               writs,
    supervisory
    22nd            Judicial                  District                 Court,            Parish     St.
    of
    Tammany,
    No.           2018-- 10797.
    BEFORE:                MCCLENDON,                     WELCH,               AND       THERIOT,              JJ.
    WRIT        DENIED.                       Plaintiff                  failed       to        meet        his        burden        of    proof
    on    the         motion              in        limine,               as       no    evidence              was      formally introduced
    at     the        hearing.                       Evidence                  not                              and
    properly                          officially offered
    and        introduced                      cannot           be         considered,                 even            if    it  is physically
    placed            in     the           record.                  Documents                  attached              to      memoranda               do    not
    constitute                  evidence                  and       cannot              be     considered                 as      such     on    appeal.
    Denoux            v.        Vessel                   Management                      Services,               Inc.,             2007- 2143 (            La.
    5/ 21/ 08),            
    983 So. 2d 84
    ,        88.
    Theriot,                  J.,
    concurs and would deny the writ.
    McClendon,                      J.,        concurs                  in    part        and        dissents             in    part.            An
    expert witness may not                                      give           expert          testimony beyond the                             scope       of
    the        field            of        expertise                   in           which       he         is     qualified.                    State        v.
    Williams,              
    615 So. 2d 1009
    ,           1022 (         La.     App.          lst      Cir.),           writ    denied,
    
    619 So. 2d 543
     (          La.            1993).                                                       biomechanics
    Specifically,                 a                                   expert
    cannot
    testify              as        to       whether               the       collision              caused          a    plaintiff' s
    injuries               since               he        is     not            a     medical           expert.                    See     Collins           v.
    Benton,           18- 7465,                 
    2020 WL 3605942
    ,                 at *    8(       E. D.        La.    July 2,           2020).
    However,               he        can        opine               on         the       force         of        impact            experienced              by
    plaintiffs and how a hypothetical human body usually responds to
    such        force,              both             of        which                                        the                     in
    may        assist
    jury               evaluating
    whether            the          collision                   caused               the       purported               injuries            and        if    so
    the    extent               of        damages.                    Id.;              see    also         Jones           v.     Bravata,           2018-
    0837 (       La.        App.               lst        Cir.            5/ 9/     19),        
    280 So. 3d 226
    ,     writ        denied,
    2019- 01850 (                La.           2/ 26/ 20),                
    294 So. 3d 477
    .            Accordingly,                I    would
    reverse            in        part               the        district                  court'       s        June         1,      2021        judgment
    denying           the " Motion                        in Limine Regarding the Testimony of Wilson
    C.    Hayes,            Ph. D."                 filed           by         Plaintiff,                  Christopher               Bittola,              and
    grant        the        motion                  to     exclude                 Dr.        Hayes' s          opinion             as    to     medical
    causation.                       I     would               deny            the        writ        application                   in     all        other
    respects.
    RT    OF AP               AL,          IRST          CIRCUIT
    1-41
    DEPU                 L    RK OF            COURT
    FOR       THE        COURT
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2021CW1260

Filed Date: 1/21/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/21/2022