Kappelman v. Lutz

¶40 (dissenting) — I agree with the majority’s observation that there is no perfect trial. Yet, parties *592are entitled to a fair trial, including the ability to present their theory of the case. Moreover, the jury is entitled to decide the facts. By excluding relevant evidence of Theodore Lutz’s statutory violation based on the factual determination that it played no part in the motorcycle accident, the trial court improperly prevented Amber Kappelman from arguing her theory of the case and encroached on the jury’s prerogative to determine proximate cause. I would reverse and remand for a new…