Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court reviews whether trial judge erred by limiting voir dire about 'waving' liability in motorcycle crash trial
Summary
The panel heard paired appeals May 8 on whether a trial court abused its discretion by curtailing attorney‑conducted voir dire about juror bias on a 'waving' (signaling) liability theory and whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence in a collision involving a commercial truck and a motorcycle.
A three‑justice panel heard paired appeals May 8 in cases arising from a collision on Medford Mall in which a motorcyclist was struck after exiting a parking garage. The appeals challenge both the trial court’s handling of attorney‑conducted voir dire and the jury’s verdicts.
Why it matters: The appeals raise whether prospective jurors should be permitted to answer questions that probe central legal theories during attorney‑conducted voir dire in civil trials, and whether the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the commercial truck driver was not negligent.
Appellants’ arguments: Attorney David Luck, representing Christopher Ciampa, stressed that defense counsel during opening statements…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
