martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Virginia Supreme Court Emphasizes Importance of Contemporaneous Objections |
June 19, 2012
The recently handed down opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court in Arnold v. Wallace, 2012 Va. LEXIS 80 (April 20, 2012), highlights for personal injury practitioners of all types, including those of us who litigate in the area of medical malpractice, the importance of well-stated, contemporaneous evidentiary objections during the course of trial. Arnold was an automobile liability case in which the plaintiff, Ms. Arnold, alleged negligence against another driver. During Plaintiff's case-in-chief she called one of her treating physicians, Dr. Charles Gardner, to testify about her injuries. On cross-examination, defense counsel showed Dr. Gardner an exhibit that Dr. Gardner identified as the plaintiff's medical records/chart from his group medical practice. Dr. Gardner confirmed that the records were regularly kept in his group's practice. Defense counsel moved to admit the records into evidence; Plaintiff's counsel objected on the ground that a proper foundation had not been laid that Dr. Gardner was the records custodian. Plaintiff's counsel further objected that defense counsel had not laid the foundation for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Following a renewed cross-examination of Dr. Gardner, defense counsel again offered into evidence the exhibit, and Plaintiff's counsel renewed the objection for lack of foundation. The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the exhibit.
|
The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. |
| | View More Library Documents By... | | | | | |
| | | | Sands Anderson PC Overview |
Practice Area Resource Centers
|
|