 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
George v. Estate of Baker12/6/2005
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for JNOV or a new trial, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by (1) erroneously instructing the jury regarding the standard of care and decedent's life expectancy; (2) admitting testimony of four witnesses regarding respondent's careful driving habits and the testimony of a state statistician regarding similar accidents; (3) excluding damage evidence consisting of letters and testimony regarding telephone calls between decedent and his family, and evidence of money transfers to decedent's family; and (4) finding that the jury's verdict that respondent-Baker was not causally negligent was supported by the evidence. Because we conclude that the jury instructions and the admitted testimony did not constitute prejudicial error, the excluded evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury's finding of no causation was supported by the evidence, we affirm.
FACTS
On March 14, 2002, a taxicab driven by Dennis Baker crossed the median and collided with a semi-truck driven by Brian Keith Losey while traveling on Interstate-494. Both the taxicab driver Dennis Baker and the taxicab passenger, Gonkartee Dekpah II (decedent), were killed instantly. Losey suffered no injuries.
Appellant Bob Makor George, brother of decedent, as trustee for the heirs of decedent, brought a wrongful death action against (1) the Estate of Dennis Allen Baker, Baker's former employer AJD Transportation, Inc., and the taxicab owner Russell Limongelli (collectively respondent-Baker); and (2) Losey and the semi-truck owner, CRST, Inc. (collectively respondent-Losey).
The accident occurred during inclement weather on northbound I-494 when Baker, who was traveling southbound, crossed over the median into the northbound lane and was hit head-on by Losey. The only two eyewitnesses to the accident were Losey and Julia Varner. Losey testified that he noticed the taxicab "fishtailing" before crossing the median, but was uncertain as to the speed of the taxicab prior to the accident or what caused it to cross the median. Varner, who was following Losey's semi-truck at the time of the accident, testified that she did not see the taxicab until it had crossed the median and was entering the northbound lane. Losey and Varner disagreed as to whether the taxicab had stopped prior to impact with the semi-truck.
The role of inclement weather in causing the accident was hotly disputed. Appellant introduced evidence of "hazardous conditions" contending that the "extreme caution" standard of care applied to respondent-Losey. Respondents presented the defense that the weather, rather than negligent driving, directly caused the accident. The parties stipulated to climatological and meteorological exhibits for the day of the accident, which included documents from the National Weather Center showing heavy snowfall, and that a winter storm warning was issued for the Metro area shortly after the accident. Appellant called Varner to testify regarding weather and road conditions at the time of the accident. Varner testified that weather conditions were deteriorating, the roads were slippery, and many vehicles were in the ditch. Appellant also called Minnesota highway patrol trooper Paul Davis to testify regarding his investigation of the accident. On direct examination, the trooper testified that, when he was notified of the accident, it had started snowing and the roads were getting slippery. When he arrived at the scene of the accident, the weather was deteriorating rapidly. On cross examination, the trooper testified, without objection by appellant, that he received dispatch calls of numerous weather-related accidents in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|