Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)

Citation: Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)
Parent Document: Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-02-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6240337/bevis-v-terrace-view-partners-lp/ ↗

Full Text

981 chars

In Heiner the Court of Appeal concluded the defendant "waived" (i.e. forfeited)15 its right to challenge the admission of plaintiff's expert's testimony about loss of future profits on appeal because defendant did not object to the testimony or request a special verdict form that segregated the elements of damages. ( Heiner, supra , 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 346, 348, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854.) The court also decided the defendant was not significantly prejudiced by the testimony because the jury's award was substantially less than the expert's projected lost future profits. ( Ibid. ) Unlike the verdict in the present case, the verdict in Heiner did not reflect an award that was legally unsustainable or insufficiently *824supported by the evidence. In White , the Court of Appeal simply noted the waiver/forfeiture general rule but did not apply it because the verdict in that case could be segregated logically. ( White, supra , 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 930-931, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71.)

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text