TRACE HESTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v s. BRIAN KLAFFKE, VERKANDT TRUCKING, LTD., Defendants - Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-923 / 08-0193
Filed December 17, 2008
TRACE HESTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
BRIAN KLAFFKE, VERKANDT TRUCKING, LTD.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Artis Reis, Judge.
Trace Heston appeals from a verdict in favor of the defendants on her
negligence claim. AFFIRMED.
Donald Beattie and Nile Hicks of Beattie Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
David L. Phipps of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Trace Heston filed a petition alleging negligence against Brian Klaffke and
his employer, Verkandt Trucking, Ltd., following an automobile collision in which
the truck Klaffke was driving made contact with Heston’s vehicle.
The
defendants admitted fault, but denied Heston’s injuries were causally related to
the incident. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding
the traffic accident was not the proximate cause of any damage to Heston.
On appeal, Heston contends the court erred in denying her motions in
limine with respect to what Heston characterizes as “irrelevant, high[ly] prejudicial
testimony regarding issues surrounding [her] psychological condition and
treatment.”
Heston’s three motions in limine were extensive and sought to
exclude evidence on approximately fifty issues. She further contends the district
court erred in denying her motion for new trial because the evidence should have
been excluded.
Chief among the problems with Heston’s arguments is her failure to
preserve error. With a limited exception, the denial of a motion in limine cannot
constitute reversible error. Berg v. Des Moines General Hosp. Co., 456 N.W.2d
173, 177 (Iowa 1990).
To preserve error after a motion in limine has been
denied, it is necessary to make a proper objection at the time the evidence is
offered. Id. at 177-78. Heston made no such objection.
An exception to the error-preservation rule exists where a ruling on a
motion in limine amounts to an unequivocal holding concerning the issue raised.
State v. Harlow, 325 N.W.2d 90, 91 (Iowa 1982).
This case has no such
3
unequivocal holding. In fact, the district court informed Heston’s counsel several
times that its rulings on the motions in limine were not dispositive on the issue of
admissibility, and any objections should be lodged at trial. This court declines
Heston’s invitation to adopt a new exception to the error preservation rule.
Accordingly, we 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.
