Warger v. Shauers, No. 12-1846 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff challenged the district court's denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. Plaintiff sued defendant for the injuries he sustained during a traffic accident. After a mistrial, the jury returned a verdict for defendant. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where a violation of an in limine order was not prejudicial; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precluded jurors from testifying in regards to jury deliberations for the purpose of challenging a verdict; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing plaintiff's reconstruction expert to testify as to whether either of the drivers' conduct violated South Dakota law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. District court did not err in denying a mistrial when defendant's counsel violated an order in limine as the violation was not prejudicial, given the court's ruling sustaining plaintiff's objection, its curative instruction and its reminder to the jury that if an objection is sustained they must ignore the question and not try to guess what the answer would have been; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's verdict; Rule 606(b) precludes jurors from testifying in regards to jury deliberation for purposes of challenging the verdict; district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert to testify as to whether either driver's conduct violated South Dakota law.
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.