Tedder v. American Railcar Industries, No. 13-1063 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against ARI, alleging that a golf cart accident had caused his debilitating back pain. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting an expert's testimony under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; under Arkansas law, the jury could rely upon lay testimony to conclude that plaintiff was asymptomatic prior to the accident and upon the expert's testimony to conclude that plaintiff's lack of symptoms prior to the accident tended to exclude potential causes of his symptoms; where the parties agreed that the district court abused its discretion in partially remitting the jury's damages award, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial; and the district court did not err in its remittitur of damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. Properly conducted differential diagnoses satisfy the Daubert standard, and the district court did not err in admitting such testimony from plaintiff's medical expert; under Arkansas law, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict; where the amount of damages was influenced by the jury's prejudice against defendant's trial counsel, the court did not err in permitting remittitur as opposed to granting a new trial; amount of remittitur affirmed.
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.