Hensley v. Bulk Transp. & Tracy G. Marbles
| Decision Date | 04 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv3-KS-MTP |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER JAY HENSLEY and LAURIN SUZANNE HENSLEY PLAINTIFFS v. BULK TRANSPORTATION and TRACY G. MARBLES, INDIVIDUALLY DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
This matter is before the Court on three (3) Motions in Limine filed by the Defendants Bulk Transportation and Tracy Marbles: 1- Motion in Limine (Evidence Related to the Death of the Canine Officer) [114]; 2- Motion in Limine (Evidence or testimony regarding log books or alleged violations of FMCSR) [115]; and 3- Motion in Limine (Comprehensive) [116]. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds as follows:
Relevant Background
On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff Christopher Hensley was injured in an automobile accident on Interstate 59 near Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Hensley, a criminal interdiction officer with the Hattiesburg Police Department, was driving a 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe in a southern direction along the right shoulder of the northbound lanes of the interstate when it collided with a northbound tractor-trailer operated by Defendant Tracy Marbles. Hensley was approaching a stranded vehicle located on the shoulder of the interstate at the time of the accident. Marbles was employed by Defendant Bulk Transportation at the time of the collision and was operating the tractor-trailer in the course and scope of his employment.
On January 10, 2013, Hensley and his wife, Laurin Hensley, filed suit against Bulk Transportation and Marbles in this Court. (See Compl. [1].) Subject matter jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity of citizenship under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Complaint alleges the following state law claims: negligence, negligent entrustment, outrage, and loss of consortium. On March 18, 2014, Plaintiffs' claim for negligent entrustment and request for punitive damages were dismissed with prejudice via an Agreed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [113].
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has provided the following guidance:
A motion in limine is a motion made prior to trial for the purpose of prohibiting opposing counsel from mentioning the existence of, alluding to, or offering evidence on matters so highly prejudicial to the moving party that a timely motion to strike or an instruction by the court to the jury to disregard the offending matter cannot overcome its prejudicial influence on the jurors' minds.
O'Rear v. Fruehauf Corp., 554 F.2d 1304, 1306 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted). Further, numerous federal courts have found "that motions in limine may be used to secure a pretrial ruling that certain evidence is admissible." Bond Pharmacy, Inc. v. AnazaoHealth Corp., No. 3:11cv58, 2012 WL 3052902, at *2 (S.D. Miss. July 25, 2012) (citing cases).
Nero, a Hattiesburg Police Department canine officer, was present in Hensley's vehicle at the time of the subject accident and died as a result of the accident. Defendants request an order from the Court "prohibiting Plaintiffs, their attorneys, andwitnesses from making any mention of, reference to, comment on, or in any other way placing before the jury by reference, innuendo, comment, testing or other means, evidence of any kind which relates to the death of the canine officer . . . ." (Mot. in Limine [114] at p. 1.) Defendants argue that the death of Nero is irrelevant to any issue remaining for trial, and that the probative value of the evidence, if any, is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.
Plaintiffs chiefly argue that Nero's death is relevant to their claims for damages for emotional distress and mental anguish. "The evidence of Nero's death is directly correlated to the damages suffered by this young family and makes those damages more probable based on the loss of Christopher's work partner, best friend, pet and beloved family member, especially since the Hensleys do not yet have any children of their own." (Resp. to Mot. in Limine [117] at p. 4.) This relevance argument is not well taken.
Plaintiffs fail to cite any court opinion supporting their recovery of emotional distress damages based on the death of their pet, Nero. Further, the Court has not identified any Mississippi authority1 providing that a claimant may recover damages for emotional distress/mental anguish arising from an injury to his or her pet.2 The majorityof courts outside of Mississippi that have considered the issue have held that plaintiffs are not entitled to such damages. See Strickland v. Medlen, 397 S.W.3d 184, 191-92 (Tex. 2013) ().3 The rationale behind several opinions applying the majority rule is that pets are considered personal property, and sentimental or emotional loss is not a legally cognizable component of a property damage award. See, e.g., Scheele v. Dustin, 188 Vt. 36, 998 A.2d 697, 700 (¶ 9) (Vt. 2010) (); Carbasho v. Musulin, 217 W. Va. 359, 618 S.E.2d 368, 371 (W. Va. 2005) ().
Damages for emotional distress arising from the negligent destruction of property are generally unavailable in Mississippi. See Miss. Tank Co. v. Roan, 254 Miss. 671, 182 So. 2d 582, 584 (Miss. 1966) (). "In the early case of Greenwald v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 115 Miss. 598, 76 So. 557, the court held that the market value of personal property destroyed [a blue-blooded hunting dog] was the proper measure of damage." Miss. Power Co. v. Harrison, 247 Miss. 400, 152 So. 2d 892, 903 (Miss. 1963). This Court has failed to identify any subsequent Mississippi appellate decision classifying a dog in a different manner for purposes of calculating damages. This Court has also recognized that emotional distress damages are unavailable under Mississippi's wrongful death statute,4 which obviously applies to humans. See Riley v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:09cv148, 2011 WL 2516595, at *2 (S.D. Miss. June 23, 2011) (citing McGowan v. Estate of Wright, 524 So. 2d 308, 311 (Miss. 1988); Bridges v. Enter. Prods. Co., 551 F. Supp. 2d 549, 557 (S.D. Miss. 2008)). The Court thus ventures an Erie guess and finds that Mississippi courts would follow the majority rule and not authorize the recovery of emotional distress damages in connection with the death of a pet, i.e., an animal. Cf. William A. Reppy, Jr., Punitive Damage Awards in Pet-Death Cases: How Do the Ratio Rules of State Farm v. Campbell Apply?, 1 J. Animal L. & Ethics 19, 34 (2006) ( that Mississippi precedent strongly suggests the tort remedy of intentional infliction of emotional distress is unavailable in pet-death cases in the state). Accordingly, the death of Nero is irrelevant to "Plaintiffs' bereavement, emotional distress and mental anguish claims" awaiting trial. (Resp. to Mot. in Limine [117] at p. 1.)
Plaintiffs make two additional relevance arguments in opposition to this Motion inLimine: (1) the existence of Nero in Hensley's vehicle explains why Hensley did not utilize his blue lights at the time of the accident; and (2) Nero's death substantiates the high-velocity impact of the subject accident and Marbles' failure to apply his brakes. Hensley contends that "he was in tactical mode and could not use his blue lights as their activation would cause Nero to become hyper, rowdy and start barking thus defeating the purpose of the tactical mode to investigate the stranded vehicle to determine why it was there, if there were occupants, etc." (Resp. to Mot. in Limine [117] at p. 3.) The Court fails to discern how the existence of a barking dog in a vehicle would defeat the purpose of tactical mode, while the use of blue lights alone would not. It also appears that the parties have access to many forms of evidence, other than the fact of Nero's death, that may be utilized to prove the circumstances surrounding the subject accident, viz., the testimony of eye witnesses, the testimony of Marbles and Hensley, expert witness testimony, the nature and severity of Hensley's injuries, and the damages to the vehicles involved. Thus, the probative value of evidence regarding Nero to the trial of this action is marginal. Also, the dangers of unfair prejudice to the Defendants (associated with a jury award including compensation for the Plaintiffs' emotional losses arising from Nero's death) and jury confusion (associated with the jury hearing facts that should not factor into its verdict) substantially outweigh the limited probative value of the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
The Court does not doubt the emotional impact of Nero's death on the Plaintiffs. However, the Court finds no basis under Mississippi law for the Plaintiffs to receive compensation for that emotional loss. The introduction of evidence regarding Nero at trial would thus distract from the Plaintiffs' potentially compensable claims and theissues of liability central to those causes of action. Therefore, this Motion in Limine [114] will be granted.
Motion in Limine (Evidence or testimony regarding log books or alleged
violations of FMCSR) [115]
Defendants seek an order precluding the jury from hearing or considering any arguments, testimony, or evidence regarding Tracy Marbles' log book...
To continue reading
Request your trial