O’Connor v. George, 2015 MT 274 (Sept. 15, 2015) (Cotter, J.; Baker, J., dissenting) (4-1, rev’d)
Issue: Whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying O’Connor’s motion for a new trial based on defense counsel’s failure to disclose that some of George’s photographic evidence depicted damage from another accident.
Short Answer: Yes.
Reversed and remanded for new trial
Facts: In September 0211, O’Connor was rear-ended by George while stopped at a railroad crossing in Helena. Both vehicles sustained minor damage; the property damage claim was resolved. O’Connor claimed she was injured in the accident. George admitted liability but disputed the extent of O’Connor’s injuries.
O’Connor sued George in May 2013. State Farm, George’s insurer, investigated and provided O’Connor with its investigative materials.…