Lee v. Small

Decision Date22 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. C 10–4034–MWB.,C 10–4034–MWB.
Citation829 F.Supp.2d 728
PartiesJohn Owen LEE, Plaintiff, v. Seth T. SMALL, Individually, and Gregory Toft, Individually and doing business as Toft & Sons Farm, Defendants,Seth T. Small, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. John Owen Lee, Counterclaim Defendant.Seth T. Small, Third–Party Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Llewellyn Brown, Third–Party Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Dennis M. McElwain, Smith & McElwain, Sioux City, IA, William K. Klinker, Smith, Grigg, Shea, Klinker & Queck, Primghar, IA, for Plaintiff.

Joseph D. Thornton, Smith Peterson Law Firm, LLP, Council Bluffs, IA, Sean J. Barry, Richard J. Barry, Montgomery, Barry & Bovee, Spencer, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------+
                
                I. INTRODUCTION                                                       735
                
 A. Factual Background                                             735
                    B. Procedural Background                                          736
                
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                    737
                
 A. Preliminary Evidentiary Rulings Or Challenges To Claims AndDefenses?   737
                   B. Relevance And Prejudice Standards                                      738
                   C. Uncontested Categories                                                 739
                
 1. Evidence of settlement offers                                    739
                       2. Cross–examination by Small's counsel regarding Lee's damages   739
                
 D. Overlapping Categories                                         740
                
 1. Evidence of liability insurance                           740
                         2. Evidence of collateral source payments from Medicare      741
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              741
                             b. Analysis                                              742
                
 i. Billed vs. paid medical expenses                  742
                                ii. Identity of the payor                             745
                
 c. Summary                                               746
                
 E. Remaining Portions Of Lee's Motion In Limine                   746
                
 1. Evidence of the fault of any medical providers            746
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              746
                             b. Analysis                                              747
                
 2. Evidence of correspondence from Medicare                  751
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              751
                             b. Analysis                                              751
                
 3. Evidence of Brown's fault in causing Lee's damages        752
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              752
                             b. Analysis                                              752
                
 4. Evidence relating to Lee's sex life                       754
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              754
                             b. Analysis                                              754
                
 5. Evidence of alcohol consumption and recovery programs     755
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              755
                             b. Analysis                                              755
                
 F.  Remaining Portions Of Small And Toft's Motion In Limine       756
                
 1. Damages evidence not disclosed in discovery               756
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              757
                             b. Analysis                                              757
                
 2. Unidentified experts                                      757
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              757
                             b. Analysis                                              758
                
 3. Evidence regarding dangerousness                          758
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              758
                             b. Analysis                                              758
                
 4. Evidence of traffic tickets                               760
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              760
                             b. Analysis                                              760
                
 G. Brown's Motion In Limine                                       763
                
 1. Toft's factual assertions beyond personal knowledge       763
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              763
                             b. Analysis                                              763
                
 2. Evidence of Small's status as an EMT and Army Reservist   764
                
 a. Arguments of the parties                              764
                             b. Analysis                                              764
                
                
III. CONCLUSION                                                        764
                

Two nighttime collisions in quick succession between a tractor pulling farm equipment across a bridge and oncoming passenger vehicles have brought this diversity action before me on pretrial evidentiary motions. While many of the issues presented are appropriate pretrial challenges to admissibility of evidence, some are dispositive motions dressed up as mere challenges to the admissibility of evidence at trial. Nevertheless, the expeditious resolution of the case requires me to address all of the issues on the footing presented.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Factual Background

The following factual background is gleaned from the pleadings and the parties' statements of facts in their evidentiary motions.1 Late in the evening on November 13, 2009, hours after sunset, Seth T. Small, a farm hand employed by Toft & Sons Farm, was driving a large farm tractor pulling an even wider implement known as a disc ripper or chisel plow westbound on Highway 18, near Spencer in Clay County, Iowa. There appears to be no dispute that Small had the “field lights” on the tractor turned on, but that the implement he was towing was unlit. There also appears to be no dispute that the implement extended well across the center line of the highway. The parties dispute whether the “field lights” blinded oncoming drivers.

Small attempted to cross a bridge, approximately 500 feet long, over the Little Sioux River a few miles east of Spencer. Other parties involved in the incident on November 13, 2009, contend that, at that point, less than a car's width remained between the implement that Small was towing and the guardrail of the bridge on the eastbound side of the bridge. When Small was about 100 feet onto the bridge, an eastbound vehicle, driven by Llewellyn Brown, approached and collided with the implement. Brown's vehicle was eventually deflected down the embankment into the north ditch where it struck a tree. Brown alleges that he suffered physical injuries and physical and mental pain and incurred medical expenses and damages to person and property as a result of this first collision.

Small stopped the tractor, either just before or as a result of the first collision. Just after Small, who was an emergency medical technician (EMT), climbed down from the cab of the tractor, intending to render aid to the driver of the vehicle involved in the first collision, a second eastbound vehicle, driven by John Owen Lee, collided with the tractor and implement and also struck Small. Small and Lee each allege that they suffered physical injuries, mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of function of mind and body, and other damages as a result of this second collision.

Somewhat more specifically—because his history of medical treatment is relevant to some of the motions in limine—Lee suffered a fractured left scapula, broken ribs, a lung contusion, and various abrasions. He was taken by ambulance to Spencer Hospital, but was soon transferred to Sanford Health Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. On November 18, 2009, while still at Sanford Health Center, Lee was diagnosed with a staphylococcus infection that eventually caused respiratory and renal failure and required a tracheostomy and mechanical ventilation over the next six weeks. Lee was eventually transferred from Sanford Health Center to Bethesda Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 11, 2010, then to Bayshore Health Center in Duluth, Minnesota, on January 22, 2010. On March 15, 2010, he was transferred again to an assisted living facility in Duluth, where he resided until his release on December 1, 2010. He alleges that he incurred expenses for hospitalizations and medical care as a result of the November 13, 2009, in excess of $600,000. Lee had private group health insurance in effect at the time of the collision and, effective December 1, 2009, he became eligible for and received Medicare coverage. Thus, his medical expenses have been paid, at least in part, by his private insurance and Medicare. The parties dispute the extent to which Lee's medical expenses were compromised and reduced by agreements between his providers and his insurer and Medicare and the precise amount ultimately paid for his care.

B. Procedural Background

On April 28, 2010, Lee, the driver of the vehicle involved in the second collision, filed a Complaint (docket no. 2) initiating this action, based on diversity of citizenship, naming as defendants Small and Gregory Toft, individually and doing business as Toft & Sons Farm, as Small's employer and the owner of the tractor and implement that Small was towing. Lee asserts that the defendants were negligent in various respects and that their negligence caused his injuries. On May 20, 2010, the defendants filed a joint Answer (docket no. 4), denying Lee's negligence claim.

On May 27, 2010, Small filed a separate Counterclaim And Third–Party Complaint (docket no. 5), alleging, inter alia, that [t]he combined negligence of John Owen Lee and Llewellyn Brown was a proximate cause of the accident and the injuries sustained by Seth T. Small on November 13, 2009. Counterclaim And Third–Party Complaint, Counterclaim at ¶ 5 and Third–Party Complaint at ¶ 6. Small asserted a counterclaim for negligence against Lee, the driver of the vehicle involved in the second collision, and a third-party claim for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Prochaska v. Menard, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • December 19, 2011
    ...these cases. Because defendant admits that it retains discretion to overlook violations of the policy, defendant's decision regarding [829 F.Supp.2d 728] these other employees is not dispositive without facts showing that the violations were comparable to plaintiff's. In fact, plaintiff cit......
  • Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 25, 2013
    ...evidence at trial, but reserves the right to offer evidence of payments made in accordance with Iowa law.ii. Analysis In Lee v. Small, 829 F.Supp.2d 728 (N.D.Iowa 2011), I discussed, in some detail, the limitations and proper uses of “collateral source” payments, such as medical insurance p......

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