In a motor vehicle negligence appeal from a jury verdict, the appellants challenged the exclusion of an investigating police officer’s accident reconstruction opinion and the trial judge’s references to an inadmissible police report in the jury charge.
The court held that the trial judge erred in treating expert necessity as absent merely because other experts testified, and also erred by discussing the contents of the excluded report before the jury.
Nevertheless, applying s. 134(6) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the officer’s observations and the defence expert’s evidence effectively conveyed the same theory, and the impugned charge did not materially affect the result.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
