N. Searles

The defendant estate moved for summary judgment in a motor vehicle accident claim, arguing that the deceased owner could not have been driving the offending vehicle and had not consented to anyone else possessing it.

The plaintiff's insurer opposed the motion, presenting hearsay evidence that the owner's son had previously driven the car and may have had implied consent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a trial was necessary to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine whether the driver had possession of the vehicle with the owner's consent.

The applicants sought directions regarding the marketing and sale process for several commercial properties previously ordered to be sold following a family dispute.

Disagreements among the parties had stalled execution of the earlier order, including disputes over listing price, bidding procedures, participation of bidding owners, and selection of an environmental assessment firm.

The court approved a two‑stage bidding process, confirmed that bidding owners could not attend the opening of first‑stage bids, and approved the proposed environmental firm.

Finding that persistent family conflict had frustrated the earlier order and would likely continue to delay the sale, the court determined that an independent receiver should be appointed to supervise the marketing and sale of the properties with the assistance of a brokerage firm.

The parties were directed to return with proposals for the appointment of a receiver and the bidding process was ordered to be completed by a specified deadline.

The defendant retailer appealed a master's order refusing further inspection and testing of ski bindings that were alleged to have malfunctioned and caused a skiing accident.

The master had concluded that the prejudicial effect of destructive testing outweighed its probative value and that direct expert evidence was required to justify the testing.

The court held that the master erred in law by requiring direct expert evidence and by rejecting admissible hearsay evidence permitted on motions under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The master also misapprehended the evidentiary record when assessing the qualifications of the proposed technician and the technical assertions contained in the affidavits.

Applying the correct Rule 32.01 test, the court found a reasonable possibility that further testing could reveal useful evidence and that its probative value outweighed the potential prejudice.

The appeal was allowed and testing of the binding was permitted.