Clayton Childers v. Noah Williams

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 22, 2024
• Docket: ED112692
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR

CLAYTON CHILDERS, ) No. ED112692 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Charles County vs. ) ) Honorable W. Christopher McDonough NOAH WILLIAMS, ) ) Respondent. ) Filed: October 22, 2024

Introduction

Clayton Childers (“Childers”) appeals the judgment entered in favor of Noah Williams

(“Williams”) following a jury verdict on Childers’ claims arising out of a vehicular collision

between the parties. In his sole point on appeal, Childers contends the trial court erred in admitting

evidence of his involvement in a motor vehicle race and placing a bet on the race because the race

occurred on a highway two roads before the point of impact. This Court holds the admission of any

evidence Childers was in a race prior to and unconnected to the collision was inflammatory and

prejudicial, warranting a new trial.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background

Childers, Williams, and a witness (“Witness”) worked together at Firestone. On May 15,

2020, the individuals left work. Childers drove a motorcycle, while Williams and Witness each drove their respective cars. While driving, Childers and Witness made a bet with one another and

engaged in a race on Highway 364. After the race concluded, the three individuals exited Highway

364 onto Bryan Road. After stopping at a stoplight, they continued on Bryan Road and then

traveled a short distance to South Outer 364 Road toward a gas station to pay off the bet. The

parties were traveling between 30-35 miles per hour when Williams’ car collided with the rear-

end of Childers’ motorcycle as the two attempted to turn into the entrance of the gas station. The

impact threw Childers from his motorcycle, resulting in injuries.

Childers brought a lawsuit against Williams to recover damages from the collision. Prior

to the trial, Childers filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence alluding to his

engagement in the race. The trial court heard arguments on the motion. At the hearing, the trial

court explained the evidence was likely inadmissible if used to show “[Childers] was speeding or

racing five minutes before the accident[,]” but the evidence would more likely be admissible if

Childers’ speed or reckless driving was connected to the accident. The trial court, however, did

not rule on this issue and decided to “take it with the case.”

Throughout the trial, the trial court sustained numerous objections at Williams’ attempts to

admit evidence of the race and the bet. However, during counsel’s direct examination of Williams,

the trial court allowed Williams to testify that Childers engaged in a race prior to the collision.

After a two-day trial, the jury reached a verdict assigning no fault to Williams.

This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of

discretion. Ball v. Allied Physicians Grp., L.L.C., 548 S.W.3d 373, 384 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). “A

trial court has broad discretion in determining the admission of evidence.” Brock v. Shaikh, 689

2 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). The trial court “abuses its discretion when its ruling is

clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the

sense of justice, and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Id. (internal quotations and citation

omitted). “For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” Denney v.

Syberg’s Westport, Inc., 665 S.W.3d 348, 357 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (citation omitted).

Discussion

In his sole point on appeal, Childers asserts the trial court erred in admitting evidence of

the race and the bet he placed on the race because the evidence was irrelevant, highly prejudicial,

and inflammatory as the race occurred on a highway two roads before the point of impact. This

Court finds any evidence of Childers engaging in a race prior to and unconnected to the collision

should not have been admitted.1

To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant. Hurley v. Burton,

626 S.W.3d 810, 825 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). “Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or

less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). On the other hand,

“[d]etermining legal relevance requires the trial court to balance the probative value of the

proffered evidence against its prejudicial effect on the jury.” Koon v. Walden, 539 S.W.3d 752,

761 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). To be legally relevant, evidence of a driver’s speed prior to a collision

“must be ‘connected’ with the collision in such a way that the conduct of the driver may be said to

be continuous.” Stapleton v. Griewe, 602 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Mo. App. W.D. 1980). Accordingly,

“[t]he only relevant evidence of speed is the speed immediately before the collision.” Mott v.

1 This Court is reversing solely on the grounds that any evidence of Childers engaging in a race prior to the collision should not have been admitted. This Court finds the mention of the bet lacks the requisite prejudicial effect on the jury to warrant reversal of this matter. Thus, this opinion does not analyze the reference made relating to the bet.

3 Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 926 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (internal quotations and citation

omitted).

The central issue in this matter concerns Williams’ testimony that Childers engaged in a

race with Witness prior to the collision. Specifically, the following colloquy took place:

Q: How close were [Witness] and Clayton Childers with you as you left Firestone? A: When we got onto the highway they were close by but then they raced. (emphasis added) Plaintiff’s Counsel: Objection, [y]our Honor. We’ve been through this before. It’s irrelevant and prejudicial. The Court: Overruled. (emphasis added) Q: (By [defense counsel]): You saw them racing? A: Yes Q: Could you keep up? A: No

Although Childers objected, he did not request the testimonial evidence relating to the race

be stricken from the record or request a curative instruction. There is no dispute the race was

unrelated to the collision as it took place on a separate road and concluded before the collision

occurred. Accordingly, the evidence that Childers engaged in a race was not relevant as it was an

isolated event unconnected to the collision. See Stapleton, 602 S.W.2d at 814. Moreover, even if

Childers had requested the testimony be stricken or requested an instruction, the proverbial bell

had been rung and the prejudicial damage was done. This Court holds the evidence alluding to the

race should not have been admitted because it was not relevant and “was so inflammatory and

prejudicial that a new trial” is warranted. Wehrkamp v. Watkins Motor Lines, 436 S.W.2d 698,

709–11 (Mo. 1969) (granting a new trial because the testimony that a defendant engaged in a race

thirty minutes before the fatal car collision at issue was inflammatory and prejudicial despite the

trial court striking the evidence from the record and instructing the jury to disregard all the

4 evidence concerning the race) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial

court.

Childers’ sole point on appeal is granted.

Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

_______________________________ Michael S. Wright, Judge

John P. Torbitzky, P.J. and Robert M. Clayton III, J. concur.