Nguyen By and Through Nguyen v. Haworth

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Jay A. Daugherty; ULRICH
• Citation: Nguyen By and Through Nguyen v. Haworth, 916 S.W.2d 887 (Mo. App. 1996)
• Decision Date: 05 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Parties: Anthony NGUYEN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Aaron NGUYEN, Respondents, v. Marcia V. HAWORTH, Appellant. 51189.

Page 887

916 S.W.2d 887

Anthony NGUYEN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Aaron NGUYEN, Respondents, v. Marcia V. HAWORTH, Appellant.

No. WD 51189.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 5, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Jay A. Daugherty, Judge.

John E. Franke, Bradley C. Nielsen, Franke & Schultz, P.C., Kansas City, for appellant.

Mark A. Buchanan, The Popham Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, for respondents.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMITH, JJ.

ULRICH, Judge.

Marcia V. Haworth asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in granting a new trial. In granting the motion, the court determined the admission of Hannah Nguyen's testimony on cross-examination, over plaintiff's objection, regarding Ms. Nguyen's plans to sue Ms. Haworth soon after Ms. Nguyen's four-year-old son Anthony was struck by a vehicle driven by Ms. Haworth was error. Ms. Haworth asserts that the court's determination does not constitute sufficient grounds for a new trial and that Anthony Nguyen was not prejudiced by the jury's hearing the testimony. Anthony sued through his father and next friend, Aaron Nguyen. The order of the trial court granting a new trial is affirmed.

On May 9, 1992, Anthony Nguyen was involved in a vehicle/pedestrian accident when he was running across the street and was struck by a vehicle driven by Marcia V. Haworth. Anthony was four years old at the time of the accident. He sustained a broken femur and lacerations to his head and chin.

The day after the accident Hannah Nguyen, Anthony's mother, took pictures of Anthony in his hospital bed showing his injuries. During cross examination Ms. Haworth's attorney asked Ms. Nguyen whether she had taken the pictures because she was contemplating suing Ms. Haworth. The Nguyens' counsel objected, claiming the information sought was irrelevant. The trial court overruled the objection on the basis that the answer to the question could be used to show bias. The court, however, limited inquiry.

In closing argument, Ms. Haworth argued that the photographs were taken because Ms. Nguyen intended to sue Ms. Haworth. Counsel stressed that the Nguyens were trying to profit from the accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Haworth. The trial court granted a new trial, determining that it had erred in allowing Ms. Haworth to ask Ms. Nguyen if she took photos of her injured son because she planned to sue Ms. Haworth.

In reviewing a trial court's grant of new trial, this court indulges every reasonable inference favoring the trial court's ruling. Hacker v. Quinn Concrete Co., Inc., 857 S.W.2d 402, 415 (Mo.App.1993). On review, appellate courts are more liberal in upholding action of the trial court sustaining a motion for new trial than when one has been denied. Cooper v. Ketcherside, 907 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Mo.App.1995). The trial court's grant of a new trial is presumptively correct and will be disturbed only in the event of manifest abuse of discretion. Carpenter v. Chrysler Corp., 853 S.W.2d 346 (Mo.App.1993).

While evidence is admissible to show interest or bias in order to discredit a witness, State v. Tivis, 884 S.W.2d 28, 32 (Mo.App.1994), a party's utilizing the legal system is not normally a basis to discredit the witness. Carlyle v. Lai, 783 S.W.2d 925, 929 (Mo.App.1989). Additionally, any attempt to prove interest or bias is subject to limitations imposed by the trial judge in his discretion. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon...