Bradshaw v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., et al, No. 12-1383 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued FFE, David A. Booker, Sr., and others after a semi-tractor trailer driven by Booker crashed into plaintiff's semi-tractor trailer. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that FFE and Booker waived their obligations to plaintiff's medical witnesses by failing to make these objections at the time set in the district court's discovery scheduling order; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reopen discovery after declaring a mistrial in the first trial; the district court properly instructed the jury on the correct use of anatomical drawings at the second trial; and because FFE and Booker did not sufficiently articulate for the district court any Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iii) objection to the demonstrative aids, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the anatomical drawings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. District court did not abuse its discretion by deciding defendants had waived their objections to plaintiff's medical witnesses by failing to make these objections at the time set in the district court's discovery scheduling order; nor did the court err in declining to reopen discovery after declaring a mistrial in the first trial; no error, under the circumstances of the case, in allowing a doctor to use undisclosed anatomical drawings at the second trial as the court properly limited testimony on the drawings and gave the jury an instruction that the drawings did not amount to substantive evidence; defendants did not sufficiently articulate a Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iii) objection to the drawings.
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.