Whittenburg v. Werner Enterprises Inc.
Decision Date | 03 April 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 07-6063.,No. 07-6119.,07-6063.,07-6119. |
Parties | Mack WHITTENBURG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES INC.; Marisela Neff; Jon M. Morlan; and Drivers Management LLC, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Broadus A. Spivey, Broadus A. Spivey, P.C., Austin, TX, and Sam L. Stein, Whittenburg Whittenburg Stein & Strange, P.C., Cherokee, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before McCONNELL, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Mack Whittenburg was driving his pickup truck on the highway when he collided with a stalled tractor-trailer. Suffering a number of injuries, Mr. Whittenburg brought suit against Werner Enterprises, Inc., the trucking company, as well as Werner's driver management company and the individual tractor-trailer drivers. The jury ultimately returned a verdict assessing the defendants' negligence at 75% and Mr. Whittenburg's damages at $3.2 million. The defendants timely appealed. We are compelled to reverse and remand for a new trial because of pervasive and improper remarks by Mr. Whittenburg's counsel in closing argument to the jury. Counsel spent the bulk of his argument placing before the jury fictitious admissions never uttered by defendants and launching vituperative and unprovoked attacks on defendants and their counsel. Neither line of argument was appropriate. Their volume and volubility, the fact they went unrebuked despite contemporaneous objections, and the apparent influence they had on the jury's verdict, collectively lead us to the reluctant conclusion that, not only were they improper, but a new trial is required.
On the morning of December 1, 2003, driver-trainee Marisela Neff was at the helm of the Werner truck while her trainer, Jon Morlan, was dozing in the sleep seat. After realizing she had taken a wrong turn onto Oklahoma Highway 325, Ms. Neff awakened Mr. Morlan who, after consulting a map, advised Ms. Neff to make a U-turn. Part-way through the U-turn the truck got stuck and remained jammed in the highway, blocking the road in both directions and shining its headlights toward oncoming traffic.
Mr. Morlan exited the truck and attempted to ascertain whether and how it might be moved out of the way of traffic. Meanwhile, Ms. Neff saw headlights approaching and ran into the middle of the highway waving a flashlight. When that failed to slow the oncoming vehicle, she ran back to the truck and began to beep the horn and turn on more lights. Mr. Whittenburg, the driver of the approaching car, testified that as he approached the obstruction he observed only the truck's headlights shining down the opposite side of the road. Believing the lights to emanate from a large vehicle parked on the opposite shoulder, Mr. Whittenburg did not slow down and as a result collided with the truck.
Both sides agree that it was dark at the scene, with little or no ambient light, and that neither Ms. Neff nor Mr. Morlan placed reflective warning markers, available in their truck, on the highway. There was reflective tape on the sides of the Werner truck, though whether Mr. Whittenburg was in a position to see the tape's reflection given the angle of the truck was a matter of dispute; Mr. Whittenburg testified he did not see the reflective tape.
Ultimately, Mr. Whittenburg brought this suit for injuries he suffered as a result of the collision. At the close of trial, Mr. Whittenburg's counsel presented a closing argument in which he asked the jury to "imagine" with him that, shortly after Mr. Whittenburg had left the house the night of the accident, Werner delivered a letter to Mr. Whittenburg's children. Because many aspects of this portion of the closing argument are challenged, we reprint it here:
And so I want to take you back to November 30th, and I want you to do just an imagining thing with me.
You recall Ann Whittenburg sitting there on the stand and saying, "Sunday afternoon we saw Mack off that day that he went to the ranch." Now, just bear with me; think with me.
Imagine that there's Brit, and there's Ann, and they sent Mack off, he's on his way out there Sunday afternoon, maybe six o'clock. Mack turns around the corner as he leaves Palacio back to I-40 and he's going to take 35 north on his way to 287 out of the Amarillo.
Brit turns around and gets ready to walk back in the house, and there's an envelope sitting there on the floor, and he reaches down and he picks it up, and he gives it to Ann, and Ann opens it, and she looks at it, and it's a letter.
It's a letter to Brit and to Sarah and to Cecily and to Justin and to Amanda.
I'm just imagining, but listen to these facts.
This letter's dated November 30th, 2003, and it's from Werner Enterprises.
...
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Walden
...have repeatedly and unequivocally been held highly prejudicial, and often alone have warranted reversal." Whittenburg v. Werner Enterprises Inc. , 561 F.3d 1122, 1130 (10th Cir. 2009). Indeed, federal courts applying Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 are in agreement that in cases where......
-
Osterhout v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Leflore Cnty.
...(2) the taking of curative action, (3) the size of the verdict, and (4) the weight of the evidence. Whittenburg v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. , 561 F.3d 1122, 1127 (10th Cir. 2009) (first three factors); Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960, 1027 (10th Cir. 2019) (balancing the weight of the evid......
-
United States v. Sorensen
...court to redo their ordeal.” United States v. Lopez–Medina, 596 F.3d 716, 740 (10th Cir.2010) (quoting Whittenburg v. Werner Enters., Inc., 561 F.3d 1122, 1131 (10th Cir.2009) ). Although we do not understand Sorensen to claim prosecutorial misconduct, we note that even “[p]rosecutorial mis......
-
Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd.
...to alter or amend a judgment); Hill v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 815 F.3d 651, 668 (10th Cir. 2016) (same); Whittenburg v. Werner Enters. Inc., 561 F.3d 1122, 1127 (10th Cir. 2009) (motion for a new trial based on an allegedly prejudicial closing argument); Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc., 160 F.3d 129......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.7 • APPEALING TO PASSION AND PREJUDICE|INFLAMMATORY ATTACKS ON ADVERSE ATTORNEY
...proceeded to launch broadside attacks on the opposing party's right to bring suit or defend itself. Whittenburg v. Werner Enters., Inc., 561 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2009). ➢ Arguing for an Award That Punishes or Creates a Deterrent Effect Improper. The 10th Circuit has recognized the potential......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.7 APPEALING TO PASSION AND PREJUDICE|INFLAMMATORY ATTACKS ON ADVERSE ATTORNEY
...proceeded to launch broadside attacks on the opposing party's right to bring suit or defend itself. Whittenburg v. Werner Enters., Inc., 561 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2009). ➢ Arguing for an Award That Punishes or Creates a Deterrent Effect Improper. The Tenth Circuit has recognized the potentia......
-
Chapter 6 - § 6.8 • MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL
...must confine comments to evidence in the record and to reasonable inferences from that evidence," Whittenburg v. Werner Enters. Inc., 561 F.3d 1122, 1128-29 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4, and Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § ......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.2 OBJECTIONS
...in the context of the overall trial, as well as to fashion an appropriately tailored remedy." Whittenburg v. Werner Enters. Inc., 561 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2009). ➢ Standard of Review on Appeal With and Without Contemporaneous Objection. On appeal for a new trial arising from improp......