The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it that required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.
Caliguire, Heather, "Rish v. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016)" (2016). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 973.