## Facts

- In September 1962, Dolly Anderson rented office space in the “Brotherhood Building,” an office building in Kansas City, Kansas.
- The building was owned and operated by Russell K. Berg, Homer E. Patton, and Alois J. Eberhardy, members of the International Board of Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (an unincorporated association).
- Anderson alleged that while walking in a fourth-floor corridor toward her office, she slipped on a heavy accumulation of floor wax, fell, and suffered serious injuries.
- Anderson sued the defendants for negligence, alleging they (or their employees) carelessly allowed the corridor floor to become slick and slippery because of excessive wax.
- During trial, a small bottle containing a sample of the wax used on the floor was identified, and Anderson admitted its identity; however, neither party formally offered the bottle into evidence before the parties rested.
- After the close of evidence and closing arguments, the jury retired to deliberate.
- Shortly after deliberations began, the jury returned to open court and asked that the bottle of wax be sent to the jury room.
- In May 1967, the trial judge reopened the case to allow the defendants to introduce the bottle into evidence. The defendants laid foundation testimony addressing the bottle’s source and chain of custody.
- Over Anderson’s objection, the trial court admitted the bottle and sent it to the jury room.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered. Anderson appealed, raising only the reopening/admission issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by reopening the case after the jury began deliberations to admit the bottle of wax into evidence and allow the jury to take it into the jury room.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by reopening the case after submission to the jury to receive the bottle of wax into evidence.
- The court reasoned that the bottle had been identified during trial and its identity was admitted by the plaintiff; the reopening occurred in court with counsel present; and the plaintiff failed to show unfair prejudice from the exhibit’s late admission.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion to reopen a case to receive additional evidence, even after both sides have rested and even after the jury has retired, so long as the procedure is controlled and occurs in open court with counsel present.
- Appellate review focuses on whether the trial court abused its discretion; reversal requires a clear showing that the discretion was misused and that the complaining party suffered unfair prejudice.
- When an exhibit has been identified during trial and the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to object and cross-examine on authenticity or foundation, late admission of the exhibit—by itself—does not require a new trial absent a showing of prejudice.

## Conclusion

Anderson v. Berg affirmed a defense verdict in a slip-and-fall case because the trial judge acted within permissible discretion by reopening the case shortly after deliberations began to admit an already-identified wax sample requested by the jury, where the foundation was supplied in open court and the plaintiff showed no unfair prejudice.


Anderson v. Berg, 451 P.2d 248 (1969)