Grant v. Morse CA3

Filed 9/14/21 Grant v. Morse CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

BRETINA GRANT,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C090162

v. (Super. Ct. No. SC20170031)

LAURIE MORSE,

Defendant and Respondent.

Laurie Morse invited six or seven female friends, including Bretina Grant, to a holiday party at her home. According to Morse, Grant drank three or four glasses of wine and the women shared a marijuana joint. In addition, Morse’s boyfriend Joe Cascio served Grant a margarita. Grant did not appear drunk when she left the party.

1

Soon after she left the party, Grant returned holding her arm and saying she had tripped over a toolbox and fallen in Morse’s yard. The toolbox was in an area near the side of the house where Morse’s son worked on cars, and a light in the area of the workshop was off. Grant had a flashlight in her pocket but did not use it. Grant sued Morse for negligence and moved in limine to preclude, among other things, counsel statements or lay witness testimony that Grant was intoxicated or that a flashlight could have prevented her fall. In ruling on the in limine motion, the trial court said counsel could say in opening statement that Grant had been drinking, but could not reference intoxication or drunkenness. The trial court added that if a witness testified about those things, counsel for Grant could address it on cross-examination. The trial court would allow questions on whether Grant smoked marijuana that night, and it would not limit testimony on whether Grant had a flashlight in her pocket. A jury found that Morse was not negligent in the use or maintenance of her property, and judgment was entered in favor of Morse and against Grant. Grant now contends (1) expert testimony was required to explain the effects of alcohol and marijuana consumption to the jury and to proffer a defense that the use of a flashlight could have prevented Grant’s fall; (2) evidence of Grant’s alcohol and marijuana consumption was irrelevant because there was no evidence she was intoxicated; (3) evidence that Grant had a flashlight in her pocket but did not use it was irrelevant; and (4) the challenged evidence was unduly prejudicial. We conclude (1) Morse did not offer lay opinion testimony that Grant was intoxicated, and expert opinion testimony was not required regarding use of a flashlight; (2) evidence of Grant’s alcohol and marijuana consumption was relevant to whether her conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injuries; (3) evidence that Grant had a flashlight but did not use it was also relevant to causation; and (4) the trial court did