HAIGH v. STEELE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JULIE HAIGH, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) HELEN E. STEELE, ) ) Defendant/Appellee. ) ) 1 CA-CV 12-0152 DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/13/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. L8015CV20067023 The Honorable Randolph A. Bartlett, Judge AFFIRMED Julie A. Haigh In Propria Persona Lake Havasu City Gannon & Associates By Thomas P. Gannon Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Tempe G O U L D, Judge ¶1 court s Plaintiff/Appellant Julie Haigh appeals the superior order dismissing with prejudice her negligence claim against Defendant/Appellee Helen E. Steele. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Haigh brought this action for negligence against Steele after the parties were involved in a pedestrian/vehicle collision. The superior court set the matter for a two-day jury trial to be held on February 9, 2012. moved in limine to preclude Haigh Prior to trial, Steele from offering any expert opinions to support her claims because she had not disclosed any such opinions and asked the court to preclude Haigh from offering her medical records in evidence because she had not disclosed any witnesses who could offer the proper foundation for those documents. The court granted the motion and Steele s subsequent motion for a directed verdict. ¶3 Haigh timely appealed. ¶4 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2011). ISSUES ¶5 Haigh challenges the superior court s dismissal of her claim against Steele. DISCUSSION ¶6 in Haigh contends the court erred by granting the motion limine served. because it was neither timely filed nor properly We review the order granting the motion for an abuse of 2 discretion. Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121, 133, ¶ 33, 180 P.3d 986, 998 (App. 2008). ¶7 The court s trial-setting order required the parties to file motions in limine at least thirty days prior to the February 9, 2012 trial date. Accordingly, Steele s motion was timely filed on December 28, 2011. Moreover, Steele properly served her motion in limine on Haigh by mailing it to her on December 27, 2011. document on a See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5(c)(2)(C) (service of party who has appeared in an action is accomplished by mailing the document via United States mail to the party s last known address).1 Further, Haigh did not dispute that she had not disclosed any expert witnesses or opinions, as required by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, and stated she had no intention [of] using any expert witnesses at trial. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion. ¶8 Warner, 218 Ariz. at 133, ¶ 33, 180 P.3d at 998. Because the court properly granted the motion in limine, we find no error in its ruling granting Steele s motion for a directed verdict. at 992 granting (stating a Warner, 218 Ariz. at 127, ¶ 8, 180 P.3d appellate directed court verdict). 1 reviews de Without any novo an evidence order the Although Haigh complains Steele knew she was out of town and did not send the motion to her via e-mail, Steele was not required to do so. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5(c). 3 collision caused her alleged injuries,2 Haigh could not sustain her burden of proof at trial. See Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 9, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (stating one of the elements a negligence plaintiff is a must causal prove to connection establish between a claim the for defendant's conduct and the resulting injury); Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of Am., Inc., (stating court plaintiff's leaving 163 Ariz. may 546, properly evidence causation 539, does to the 789 enter not P.2d a directed establish jury's 1040, a 1047 verdict causal speculation). (1990) when connection, Haigh never asserted she had sufficient evidence to prove causation without expert witness testimony, and therefore that issue is not properly before us. See Winters v. Ariz. Bd. of Educ., 207 Ariz. P.3d 173, ¶ 13, 83 1114, 1118 (App. 2004) (appellate argument waived if not first raised with trial court). ¶9 Finally, Haigh argues the court erred by dismissing her action because she accepted Steele s offer of judgment on December 26, 2011. We decline to consider this argument, which Haigh first raised in her reply in support of her motion for reconsideration. Ramsey v. Yavapai Family Advocacy Ctr., 225 Ariz. 132, 137, ¶ 18, 235 P.3d 285, 290 (App. 2010) (stating 2 There were unusual causation issues in that Haigh suffered from a hematoma on the left side of her body, but the vehicle struck her on the right side. 4 appellate court generally does not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration). CONCLUSION ¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /S/____________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge CONCURRING: /S/_________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge /S/_________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Judge 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.