Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1838,87-1838 |
| Citation | 865 F.2d 789 |
| Parties | Sheila L. LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; Kellermeyer Building Services, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Steven W. Reifman (argued), Reifman & Applebaum, P.C., Farmington Hills, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
Martha Churchill (argued), Royal Oak, Mich., for Dayton Hudson.
Michael T. Lynch, Detroit, Mich., Deanna E. Hazen (argued), for Kellermeyer.
Before MARTIN, JONES, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
Logan appeals the district court's order granting the defendants a new trial on the issue of damages based upon the district court's determination that it committed error in admitting the testimony of chiropractor, Dr. Herman J. Glass, with respect to Logan's potential need for surgery.
Logan slipped and fell on popcorn and grease in Dayton Hudson Corporation's retail store. Kellermeyer Building Services, Inc., was contractually obligated to Dayton Hudson Corporation for maintenance of the retail store. The case was tried before a jury on April 15, 1987 with the jury rendering a verdict in the amount of $125,000.
Dayton Hudson and Kellermeyer Building Services filed motions for a new trial on the grounds that the district court erred in allowing chiropractic testimony on behalf of Logan which indicated that she might need surgical intervention at a future date. Under Fed.R.Evid. 702, the district court qualified Dr. Glass as an expert to testify to that which was properly considered within the practice of chiropractic. The district court, referring to M.C.L. Sec. 333.16401; M.S.A. Sec. 14.15 [16401] and Attorney General v. Beno, 422 Mich. 293, 373 N.W.2d 544, (1983), defined the proper limits of a chiropractor's field of expertise to exclude any diagnosis regarding the need for surgery. However, Dr. Glass testified that Logan may need such future back surgery. The district court initially admitted the testimony over the objection of Dayton Hudson but later reversed itself stating that Dr. Glass' testimony was beyond the scope of his qualified field of chiropractic. Dr. Glass lacked the expertise to make a diagnosis as to the need for further surgical intervention.
On July 20, 1987, the district court issued an order granting the motion for a new trial stating that it had improperly admitted the testimony of Dr. Glass to the prejudice of Dayton Hudson. On July 29, 1987, the district court issued another order amending its prior order of July 20 and granting a new trial for Dayton Hudson and Kellermeyer on the issues of damages only. A second trial was held resulting in a reduced verdict and a judgment in the amount of $60,000 in favor of Logan. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the basis that it committed error in admitting the opinion testimony of Dr. Glass with regard to Logan's potential need for surgery.
If a trial court has improperly admitted evidence and a substantial right of a party has been affected, the trial court may order a new trial, Fed.R.Civ.P. 61, on the motion of a party, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a), or on its own initiative, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(d), on all or part of the issues, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Generally, the grant or denial of a new trial is purely within the discretion of the trial court and will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gafford v. General Elec. Co.
...88 S.Ct. 239, 19 L.Ed.2d 260 (1967). The deferential standard of review accorded to these orders is articulated in Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789 (6th Cir.1989), where we Generally, the grant or denial of a new trial is purely within the discretion of the trial court and will no......
-
Youn v. Track, Inc.
...the trial court committed a clear error of judgment" before reversing under the abuse of discretion standard. Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir.1989). Plaintiffs make two arguments. First, they claim the judge had already decided not to believe them. The court wrote i......
-
Thompson v. Bell
...a clear error of judgment.'" Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 578-79 (6th Cir.1998) (quoting Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir. 1989)). In other words, "Under the abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court may overturn a lower court's ruling only if i......
-
Colunga v. Young
...decision or pay the judgment entered against him. The grant or denial of a new trial is purely discretionary. Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir. 1989). Young's perjury allegations merely repeat arguments made at trial, where he had a full and fair opportunity to test ......
-
Table of Cases
...787 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1986), 254 Loeb Indus., Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp., 306 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2002), 51 Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. 1989), 213 Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., In re, 202 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2001), 40 Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v.NFL, ......
-
Evaluating the Scientific Validity of A Damages Model
...that it was prejudicial error to allow an expert to testify to matters outside the scope of his expertise); Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1989) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting new trial where expert provided testimony to ......