Brown v. Davis, No. 15-1009 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, Kyle Brown's widow, filed a wrongful death action against Kenneth Davis, Jr., William Davis, and WDL. Ken was driving the truck, that fatally hit Kyle, for his uncle William and WDL. The complaint asserted negligence based on Ken's driving and William's failure to block oncoming traffic. A jury returned a $3 million verdict for plaintiff and her two children. The court concluded that the district court correctly instructed on general negligence principles, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that William had a legal duty to take appropriate precautions; the evidence of William's failure to stop traffic and of his misleading signal to Ken was sufficient for the jury to find that William failed to exercise ordinary care; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that William acted negligently and caused the death of Kyle Brown; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a new trial where defendants' counsel opened the door for the allegedly prejudicial statement by counsel for plaintiff, and the statement at issue was not unwarranted given the context, nor was it clearly injurious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. Defendant Williams should have foreseen the risks of transporting an oversized log skidder across a bridge without first stopping oncoming traffic and ordinary persons would have taken precautions to do so; there was sufficient evidence to show that Williams had a legal duty to take appropriate precautions and that he breached that duty of care by failing to stop traffic and by giving the truck's driver a misleading signal; the jury could find defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the accident that killed plaintiff's decedent as the driver's negligence did not break the chain of causation set in motion by defendant's failure to stop the decedent's car from driving onto the bridge and the problem was exacerbated by the negligent warning he gave the driver; no error in denying motion for new trial based on a claim plaintiff's attorney's comment during closing argument prejudiced the jury as defendant opened the door for the comment and the statement was not injurious because the court told the jurors to disregard it.