Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc.

Decision Date28 September 1983
Docket NumberNos. 81-5752,81-5777,s. 81-5752
Citation716 F.2d 598
Parties13 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1558 John FENNER, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DEPENDABLE TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, Federated Department Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Martin Lemmons, Defendants/Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Norby & Brodeur, Torrance, Cal., Horvitz & Greines, Ellis J. Horvitz, Marilyn L. Hoffman, Encino, Cal., for Dependable Trucking Co.

Charles H. Carpenter, Los Angeles, Cal., for Federated Dept. Stores.

Richard A. Caplan, Long Beach, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS, ROBB, * and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.

ALARCON, Circuit Judge:

Dependable Trucking Company, Inc., and Martin Lemmons, (hereinafter Dependable) and Federated Department Stores dba Ralphs (hereinafter Ralphs) appeal from a judgment entered by the district court after denial of their motion for a new trial.

We are asked to determine whether the district court denied appellants a fair trial by refusing to continue the trial because of the unavailability of a material witness. We are also asked to decide whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial after finding that the jury had ignored the weight of the evidence on the question of liability and had awarded excessive damages. We reverse and remand.

I. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court denied Dependable and Ralphs a fair trial on the issue of damages by refusing to continue the trial until their expert witness would be available to testify.

2. Whether the district court should have ordered a new trial on the issue of liability upon finding that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

3. Whether the district court should have ordered a new trial on damages upon finding that the verdict was excessive.

4. Whether the district court erred in admitting the hearsay statement of a Ralphs' employee over Dependable's objection.

II. PERTINENT FACTS

John Fenner, a truck driver, brought this diversity action seeking damages for injuries he sustained in an accident involving a truck driven by Martin Lemmons (an employee of Dependable Trucking Co.) at Ralphs' loading facility in Compton, California. Fenner alleged that as a result of the accident he suffered permanent brain damage.

Before trial began on July 7th, counsel for Dependable and Ralphs informed the court that their expert witness, a neurosurgeon, would not be available until July 20th and requested that the court "trail" the case. The court did not rule on this motion. Instead the trial judge indicated that "we will work that out."

Trial began on July 7th. On July 10th, Fenner's counsel introduced a CAT scan which had been taken during trial. 1 According to Fenner's expert, this CAT scan showed that Fenner had suffered permanent brain damage.

On July 15th, the 4th day of trial, the court announced that due to its pressing court calendar it would conclude the trial the following day. As a result Dependable and Ralphs were unable to present the testimony of their expert neurosurgeon.

The jury returned a verdict for Fenner in the amount of $400,270.

Dependable and Ralphs moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. At the hearing on these motions, the trial judge stated that (1) the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence on the question of liability and (2) the jury's award of damages was excessive. The court denied Dependable and Ralphs' motions and ordered a remittitur of $80,054. The court further advised counsel that judgment would be entered for the full amount of the verdict unless Dependable and Ralphs agreed to the remittitur and waived their right of appeal. Fenner accepted the reduced amount. Dependable and Ralphs refused to accept the remittitur. The court entered judgment for $400,270.00.

III. ANALYSIS
A. Denial of a Fair Trial

Dependable and Ralphs contend that they were denied a fair trial when the court refused to continue the trial to allow their expert witness to testify.

On July 7th, the date set for trial, Dependable and Ralphs requested a continuance. The court was advised that their expert witness would not be able to testify until July 20th. The following colloquy ensued:

Counsel for Dependable: Just a suggestion that Tuesday would be better because my neurological surgeon is not going to be back until Monday. I'm not sure what his calendar looks like. He would be available to talk to me on Monday. They have a psychologist who we deposed two weeks ago. I'd like to have a chance to talk to my neurological surgeon before I put him on.

The Court: Well sure. When is he due back?

Counsel for Dependable: The 20th of July.

The Court: All right. We will work that out.

The trial commenced on July 7. A recess was taken on July 10. Proceedings resumed on Wednesday, July 15. On that date the court announced that the trial would have to be concluded on the following day. The record reflects the following discussion:

Counsel for Dependable: Your Honor, I have a neurological surgeon who is scheduled to return from vacation on the 20th, as I advised the court at the beginning of trial. Your honor indicated he could testify during the trial. They are bringing up a CAT scan taken a week ago. We are being severely handicapped by not having an opportunity to examine that to have my neurosurgeon consider it before he testifies.

The Court: Get him back. Pay him to come back a day early.

Counsel for Dependable: I have no control over my neurosurgeon your Honor.

The Court: You don't?

Counsel for Dependable: None at all.

The Court: Issue a subpoena. Did you subpoena him? I have got control. If you didn't subpoena him it's your fault, not mine. Get him back. Gentlemen I am not going to conduct my calendar in accord with the calendar of expert witnesses. No way. We go to trial here. If you can't pay your witnesses enough to get back here, it's not my problem. If you didn't subpoena them, it's not my problem. If you subpoenaed them and they didn't show up, I will arrest them and have them brought in. That, I can do.

The court made it clear that it intended to conclude the trial on the following day. The court stated:

I can give you this afternoon and all day tomorrow. We can start at 9:00 and go to 6:00, 5:30, whatever. And I'm a tough baby. I have gone as late as midnight, if my reporter would bear with me, to finish a case.... And I'll tell my law clerks to call up the air conditioning people and tell them to turn it off. It's going to be maybe as late as 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 o'clock, we will see, with breaks for the court reporter. Because that's the only way we are ever going to get this thing done. We are swamped here. We are three judges short in addition to the two that are in Congress. We are five judges short, and our case load has increased 20 percent in the last four months. It's crazy. Everybody is a litigant nowadays.

On Tuesday I have got this extortion case and that's going to go and it's a big baby for both sides, so that takes up Tuesday and Wednesday, maybe Thursday, maybe Friday. I don't know. Then I'm going to Michigan, and I'll be gone for a week, and then I come back. That's the end of August and then in August I have the last week ... I mean nothing available until August the what? August 17th is hopeless. I mean August 3rd. August 3rd maybe we can give you some time if we need it. But I don't see any reason why we can't finish this afternoon and tomorrow...."

No case is going to outlive me I'll tell you that and it's so easy to push these things if the judge is tough. I hate to be tough to injure anybody, either side, but I think I've got to be strict and tough that we move it on the basis of my pretrial order. (RT: Vol. III, pp. 328-329.)

The defense rested on Thursday, July 16 without putting on the testimony of their expert witness.

It is clear to us from this record that the district court's statement to counsel that it would work out the problem faced by the defendants because their expert would be unavailable until July 20 lulled Dependable and Ralphs into a false sense of security that the absent witness would be allowed to testify. Because of the court's assurances, Ralphs and Dependable did not take steps to secure other expert testimony.

The expert's testimony was material and not cumulative. At the hearing on their motion for a new trial, Dependable and Ralphs presented an affidavit in which their expert alleged that the new CAT scan did not show permanent brain damage. Failure to produce this rebuttal evidence at trial was not due to a lack of diligence by defense counsel, but rather to the court's conduct in failing to fulfill its promise to continue the trial to ensure that their expert would be able to testify.

The court's refusal to allow defense counsel time to present the testimony of their expert to rebut newly discovered damaging evidence presented by the plaintiff allowed this testimony to go unrebutted. Had the jury heard and believed the testimony of the defense expert, the amount of damages awarded would have been reduced. The court's rulings, precluding the appearance of the defense expert, resulted in the denial of a fair trial.

B. The Jury Verdict was Against the Weight of the Evidence

In rendering a verdict for Fenner, the jury found that there was no contributory negligence on Fenner's part. 2 The district court concluded that this finding was against the clear weight of the evidence. At the hearing on appellants' motion for a new trial the court stated:

Now in my view, I think that this fellow was guilty of 25% contributory negligence and that the jury should have had that in mind. In my view, he stepped off and pushed that door open to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Filkins v. McAllister Bros., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 22, 1988
    ...F.2d at 718; Johnson v. Parrish, 827 F.2d at 991; Dempsey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 717 F.2d 556 (11th Cir.1983); Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., 716 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.1983). The duty of the trial judge in dealing with a motion to set aside a verdict as excessive, insofar as this Circuit ......
  • Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 26, 1997
    ...excessive may either order a new trial or deny the motion conditional on the party accepting a remittitur. Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc., 716 F.2d 598, 603 (9th Cir.1983). COT argues that it should have been given this option before the jury's award was reduced. However, the magis......
  • Wooten v. BNSF Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • April 23, 2019
    ...speculation or guesswork. First Alliance Mortg. , 471 F.3d at 1001 ; Del Monte Dunes , 95 F.3d at 1435 ; Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc. , 716 F.2d 598, 603 (9th Cir. 1983). Particularly in light of the fact that Wooten came from a "railroad family" in a small "railroad town" and wa......
  • United States v. Sierra Pacific Indus.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 31, 2012
    ...(citations omitted). These statements are admissible as party admissions as to Howell. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2); cf. Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., 716 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.1983); see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 543 (9th Cir.1992) (“[T]he facts underlying the affidavit must be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...806 (1920), Form 7-30 Fellos v. Earth Const., Inc. , 794 F.Supp. 531, 538 (D. Vt. 1992), §7:65 Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc. , 716 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1983), §7:110 Ferguson v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue , 921 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1991), §9:33.1 C- 813 Table of Cases Fernandez-R......
  • Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...Lines, Inc. , 687 F.2d 108, 112 (5th Cir. 1982). • Unavailability of a crucial witness or party. Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc. , 716 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1983). • Substitution, illness or death of counsel. Schooley v. Kennedy , 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983). • Recent amendm......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT