OBJECTION: WRONG!!!!

Webster v. Claremont Yoga, No. B279272 (Aug. 16, 2018)

Customer at a Yoga Studio claims that an Instructor there hurt her back when he put her in various positions. Studio moves for summary judgment.

 In support, Studio puts in declarations from two experts. (1) a yoga expert, who opined to the standard of care and that Instructor met it here; and (2) an orthopedic surgeon, who opines that Customer actually had degenerative disc disease already and that her injuries weren’t consistent with yoga trauma. Plaintiff didn't put in anything from her own experts in opposition. Instead, she objected to yoga dude’s declaration as lacking in foundation and to the otrtho’s declaration as—and I quote the opinion directly here—“‘inherently unbelievable.’  (Boldface, underlining, and capitalization omitted.)”

On the standard of care issue, there’s some dispute about whether an expert is even needed to establish the standard of care for a yoga instructor. The requirement to admit expert testimony to lay out the standard of care is common for professional negligence against doctors, lawyers, and accountants, and also in some construction defect cases. But it’s less clear outside of those areas. 

The Court, however, does not seem to think it’s a hard question. As the court explains it, “‘the lay person’s common knowledge’ would not include ‘the conduct required by the particular circumstances’ of a yoga instructor in [Instructor’s] position, and an expert’s opinion on the question would be of benefit.‟ So an expert is, in fact, needed. Studio had one. Customer didn’t. Given the need for an expert, Customer’s personal opinion that instructor seemed to handle her roughly wasn’t enough. Which means Customer did not meet her burden to come forward with evidence to create a dispute of fact on the standard or its breach.

So far as the doctor goes, unfortunately for Customer, HE LIES! is not a proper evidentiary objection, regardless of the number of redundant forms of emphasis are applied to it.* Which means that the Studio’s doc shifted the burden on causation and Customer didn’t do anything to create a dispute of fact. So SJ was appropriate on that issue as well.

Affirmed.

*It is probably a good time to plug Matthew Budderick’s work on lawyers and typography, which can be found here. (You could also buy his book.) He says you only get one kind of emphasis (bold or italic, preferable) and it needs to be used sparingly. Could not agree more.