Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, No. 15-1098 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs Kozlov and Tchikobava, employees of Albatross, were injured in a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of AWG. The employee, Michael Scott, was killed in the crash. Kozlov and Tchikobava both filed personal injury lawsuits against AWG and Scott's estate. Because both Kozlov's and Tchikobava's negligence was equal to or greater than AWG's negligence, plaintiffs were barred from recovery. Because the jury found Kozlov 84% at fault, he was barred from recovery. Kozlov's contributory negligence in the accident, according to the jury's sole discretion, was greater than AWG's negligence (8%). Similarly, Tchikobava's contributory negligence (8%) was equal to AWG's negligence, and thus, he was also barred from recovery. The court concluded that the jury's assessment of each party's negligence and the resulting damages are not clearly against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence; the district court properly instructed the jury on proximate cause and the instructions Tchikobava offered were inapposite; Tchikobava's argument regarding the noneconomic damage calculation was waived; even if the issue were properly preserved, the damages were adequate; Kozlov was not prejudiced by misleading jury instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting factual issues regarding Kozlov's negligence regarding lights on the trailer, qualifications as a truck driver, and Tchikobava's negligence in failing to train or supervise; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant's expert to testify, denying Kozlov's motion for leave to amend, and excluding evidence of Scott's prior accident and his questionable health. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Personal injury. The district court did not err in consolidating plaintiffs' cases or in instructing the jury to allocate negligence among all three parties on single verdict form; the jury's assessment of each party's negligence and the resulting damages are not clearly against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence; the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiff Tchikobava's proposed instruction on proximate cause; plaintiff Tchikobava's argument regarding noneconomic damage calculation was waived by his failure to request a new trial; even if preserved, the challenge would be rejected as the damages were adequate; plaintiff Kozlov's challenge to burden of proof instruction rejected; argument that certain issues of negligence should not have been submitted to the jury rejected as the instructions were supported by the record; no error in permitting defendant's expert to testify regarding reaction time as he was qualified to testify on the issues; no error in denying plaintiff Kozolov's motion to amend his complaint; no error in refusing to admit certain evidence concerning defendant's driver.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.