Kingman v. Joseph

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: June 8, 2021
• Docket: 3:18-cv-00155
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KINGMAN and REBECCA KINGMAN PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:18-cv-155-DPM

CHARLI JOSEPH and TRANSNET FREIGHT LTD. DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. The Kingmans’ motion in limine, Doc. 56, is granted without objection with a caveat. Joseph and Transnet must approach if they believe other testimony has made the social media posts relevant. 2. The Joseph/Transnet omnibus motion in limine, Doc. 58, is partly granted and partly denied, with directions on some issues. The Court will inquire in voir dire about the corporate and “discount” issues. Here are the Court's rulings. ° Putting the Trucking Industry on Trial Granted without objection. e Alleged Acts of Negligence Not Pleaded Granted without objection. ¢ Golden Rule and “Reptile Theory” Partly granted and partly denied. Granted on the Golden Rule. Plaintiffs may not make any improper “golden rule” arguments. Lovett

ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 201 F.3d 1074, 1083 (8th Cir. 2000). Denied on “Reptile Theory.” The Court expects all counsel to stay within the bounds of good and honorable advocacy that doesn’t inflame the jury or appeal to passion or prejudice. ¢ Parties’ Relative Wealth & Defense Costs Mostly granted and partly denied. Joseph and Transnet’s financial condition isn’t relevant. But the Kingmans may cross-examine Defendants’ expert witnesses about what they’ve been paid for their time. E.g., Ratliff v. Schiber Truck Co., 150 F.3d 949, 955 (8th Cir. 1998). * Referring to Plaintiffs as “Victims” Denied with directions. The Kingmans’ lawyer may refer to Plaintiffs as victims in closing argument, not questioning. * Defendants’ Corporate Representative Granted without objection. ¢ Other Lawsuits Granted. The parties are trying this case, not others. * Mentions of Motions in Limine Granted without objection. ¢ Evidence Concerning Liability Partly granted and partly denied with directions and without prejudice. While Defendants have conceded liability, the crash report and Defendant Joseph’s post-accident statement may contain evidence relevant to damages. And the Kingmans may impeach Joseph with his -2-

report if his testimony contradicts what’s in it. FED. R. EVID. 613; FED. R. Evip. 801(d)(2). As they intend, the Kingmans must avoid “piling on” evidence about liability, which could prejudice Joseph and Transnet. FED. R. EVID. 403. ¢ Medical Opinions Denied without prejudice. The Court will follow the Rules of Evidence, including those about experts. So Ordered.

BP An toll fy. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 8 Sunte AO

-3-