Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: July 16, 2010 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of July 16, 2010, the Minnesota appellate courts released an opinion on the following topic that may be of interest to our clients:
TRIAL PRACTICE – NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN PARTY REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN TRIAL
-
A party that refuses to participate meaningfully in the remainder of a trial after an adverse ruling on a motion for a continuance or new trial may not challenge the ruling on the basis of prejudicial error.
Plaintiff sued defendant for negligent property maintenance. Testimony at trial revealed that defendant had written notes relating to the property which were not produced during discovery. Plaintiff moved for a continuance in order to obtain the notes, and then moved for a new trial. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motions due to scheduling conflicts and defendant’s deteriorated health. Plaintiff reacted by refusing to submit further evidence, cross-examine any witnesses, make a closing statement, or submit a trial memorandum. The trial court found in favor of defendant on all claims, and plaintiff moved for a new trial arguing that it was deprived of a fair trial because evidence was intentionally withheld. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, plaintiff argued that defendant’s withholding of evidence merited a new trial, citing Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 59.01. The Court rejected this argument, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately prove prejudicial error. The Court reasoned that the decision to voluntarily abandon the trial had caused plaintiff to inflict prejudice upon itself which irrevocably obscured any theoretical prejudice caused by the district court’s decision. The Court concluded that the voluntarily abandonment made it impossible to determine whether plaintiff was prejudiced by the district court’s action rather than its own conduct. Ultimately, the Court held that when a party refuses to participate in the remainder of a trial due to the denial of midtrial motions for a continuance or for a new trial, it has prejudiced itself and may not challenge the denial for prejudicial error.
Torchwood Properties, LLC v. McKinnon, A09-1993 (Minn. Ct. App. 7/13/10).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, J.S. Andresen, M. Covin, S. Gustad, B. Sande, D. Dahlmeier, C. Hund, S. Sitek, T. Quick, D. Camarotto, K. Burke, J. Marquet, D. Turner, L. Pugh, M. Bradford, and S. Pearson |
Writer this Week: |