 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brooks v. Holtz3/13/2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Lawrence H. Fautsch, Judge.
Appellants appeal from an adverse verdict in a personal injury action. AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendants in a personal injury action. We affirm.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings.
On October 27, 1996, Randy Brooks sustained injuries while insulating the roof of a building located on his property. Brooks fell approximately fourteen feet to the concrete floor from a plank he had placed across two 2" x 4" "lateral spacers." He sustained serious injuries to his lower extremities. On March 24, 1997, Brooks and his wife sued Lester Building Products, the designer of the structure and supplier of the building materials, and Bob Holtz, the contractor who built the structure. Plaintiffs alleged negligence and strict liability theories against the defendants and claimed damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs claimed a defective lateral spacer supplied by Lester and installed by Holtz caused their damages. In particular, plaintiffs claimed the spacer was defective because it had been weakened by several cuts that caused it to break when the weight of the plank and Brooks's body were placed upon it. Following a jury verdict in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal claiming the district court erred in (1) excluding certain evidence, (2) instructing the jury on the definition of "defective," (3) refusing to permit the jury to have access to a video tape during their deliberations, (4) engaging in ex parte communication with the jury during its deliberations, and (5) failing to grant a new trial on the ground the jury's deliberations were inadequate in duration. Additional facts will be presented below as necessary in our discussion of these assignments of error.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Query, 594 N.W.2d 438, 443 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). We review a trial court's formulation of jury instructions for errors of law. Sheets v. Ritt, Ritt & Ritt, Inc., 581 N.W.2d 602, 604 (Iowa 1998); Shinn v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 610 N.W.2d 538, 541 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). We review the trial court's rulings with respect to trial administration (jury's access to exhibits, communication with the jury and duration of jury deliberations) for an abuse of discretion. Heth v. Iowa City, 206 N.W.2d 299, 303 (Iowa 1973).
III. Evidentiary Ruling.
Plaintiffs offered in evidence Exhibit S, a letter written by their counsel to defendants' attorneys. The letter dated October 15, 1999 covered a wide variety of topics including plaintiffs' counsel's (1) assessment of the merits of the case, (2) characterization of the substance of the expected testimony of Terry Brady, a witness who responded to the 911 call, and (3) comments about settlement negotiations. A copy of the letter was also delivered to Brady, who signed it attesting he "agree with the facts set forth therein."
It is undisputed that Brady had two opportunities to observe the inside of the building in question. The first of these was on the day Brooks was injured, and the second was on October 5, 1999 when Brady returned to the building at plaintiffs' request. The parties sharply disagreed about the substance and significance of what Brady observed on these two occasions. Defendants contended Brady observed a very small indentation or crack in a spacer, but no broken spacers. Plaintiffs contended Brady saw no broken spacer because he failed to look in the location where Brooks fell.
In his trial testimony, B
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|