DENNIS W. GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. KYRA SEE, Defendant - Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-774 / 08-0023
Filed October 15, 2008
DENNIS W. GRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
KYRA SEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy Tabor, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals following a trial in which the jury found the automobile
accident between plaintiff and defendant was not a proximate cause of any
damage to the plaintiff. AFFIRMED.
William J. Bribriesco of William J. Bribriesco and Associates, Bettendorf,
for appellant.
Patrick L. Woodward and Heather L. Carlson of McDonald, Woodward &
Ivers, P.C., Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Dennis Gray appeals following a trial in which the jury found his
automobile accident with Kyra See, which occurred on August 10, 2005, was not
a proximate cause of any damage he alleged. Gray claimed a vehicle driven by
See ran a red light and struck his vehicle at an intersection in Davenport, Iowa.
Gray filed a lawsuit against See for alleged injuries arising out of the accident.
Prior to trial, See filed written objections and three motions in limine requesting
that Gray, his attorneys, and his witnesses be prohibited from referring to
whether Gray was telling the truth about his injuries, whether he sincerely
believed he was injured, and whether his pain was real. Specifically, See moved
to exclude testimony of Gray’s treating orthopedic physician, Dr. Congdon, as to
his opinion of whether Gray exaggerated or magnified his symptoms with regard
to the injuries Gray alleged to have sustained in the accident. The court granted
See’s objections and excluded that portion of Dr. Congdon’s deposition.
After the close of See’s case, Gray moved for a directed verdict on the
issue of fault. The court granted the motion, but the jury found the car accident
was not a proximate cause of any damage to Gray. Gray filed a motion for a new
trial, which the district court denied. Gray now appeals, arguing the district court
abused its discretion when it excluded portions of Dr. Congdon’s testimony.
We review claims of error in the exclusion of evidence for abuse of
discretion. State v. Boggs, 741 N.W.2d 492, 499 (Iowa 2007); Pexa v. Auto
Owners Ins. Co., 686 N.W.2d 150, 160 (Iowa 2004). An abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court exercises its discretion “on grounds or for reasons
clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Parker, 747
3
N.W.2d 196, 203 (Iowa 2008). A ground or reason is untenable when it is not
supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous
application of the law. Id. Even if an abuse of discretion is found, reversal is not
required unless prejudice is shown. State v. Buenaventura, 660 N.W.2d 38, 50
(Iowa 2003).
Under Iowa law, expert testimony expressing an opinion on the credibility
or truthfulness of a witness is not admissible. State v. Allen, 565 N.W.2d 333,
338 (Iowa 1997); State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91, 97 (1986).
Because the
ultimate determination of the credibility or truthfulness of a witness is not a fact in
issue, but a matter to be generally determined solely by the jury, expert opinions
as to the truthfulness of a witness are not admissible pursuant to Iowa Rule of
Evidence 5.702. Myers, 582 N.W.2d at 97.
Upon our review of the record, we cannot say the district court abused its
discretion in excluding the challenged testimony of Dr. Congdon. Dr. Congdon’s
testimony is inadmissible under Iowa law.
Even assuming any possibility of
abuse of discretion, the exclusion of this testimony would be harmless error. We
therefore affirm.
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.
