McCollum v. UPS Ground Freight Incorporated et al
Filing
132
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/11/2013.(NVO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
No. CV-11-0961-PHX-DGC
Stephanie McCollum,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
ORDER
UPS Ground Freight Incorporated, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
The Court held a final conference with the parties on January 10, 2013. During
15
the conference, the Court addressed Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence
16
of Alleged Mistakes in Defendants’ Driver’s Log Books and Any Reference to Federal
17
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations Section 395.8. Doc. 108. The Court took the motion
18
under advisement, and will now grant it in part and deny it in part.
19
The Court previously has understood Plaintiff to be asserting that the inaccurate
20
log books were relevant to punitive damages because they help explain the fatigue Mr.
21
Duenas allegedly was suffering on the day of the accident – fatigue Plaintiff claims
22
caused the accident.
23
reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, “Plaintiff alleges that financial
24
incentives led Mr. Duenas to falsify his log books by driving when he should have been
25
out of service and understating the length of time for vehicle safety inspections. . . . Log
26
books that inaccurately report the length of time that Mr. Duenas was in service, if
27
motivated by financial interests as Plaintiff alleges, may demonstrate that Mr. Duenas
28
As the Court said in ruling on Defendants’ motion for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
allowed himself to become so fatigued that he drove through the intersection on a red
light.” Doc. 86 at 3.
At the conference on January 10, 2013, however, Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that
the log books are relevant to punitive damages for other reasons: (1) the log books show
that Duenas and Maldanado did not conduct safety inspections of their truck, or
conducted only cursory inspections, demonstrating that they ignored safety; (2) the log
books contain blank information in areas where Duenas and Maldanado were required to
record the results of inspections, again showing a disregard for safety; (3) the log books
show that Duenas and Maldanado sometimes failed to record the total miles they drove in
a day and the total miles the truck travelled in a day; and (4) the books show significantly
different times for when the truck arrived in Phoenix on the day of the accident.
Points one and two are not related to driver fatigue. They may show that the
drivers were not inspecting the truck as required, but a lack of inspections would not
contribute to fatigue.
The third point shows that Duenas and Maldanado were not recording total
mileage on some days, but that too is unrelated to fatigue. The log books contain
complete time records for when each driver was driving, in the sleeper birth, off duty, or
on duty and not driving, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not claim that these time entries are
inaccurate. Plaintiff’s counsel instead argued at the conference that these entries show
that Duenas and Maldanado were driving when they should have been conducting
inspections – that they accurately reflect the actual driving time. When the drivers’
activities for each 24-hour period can be seen in the log books, the absence of total
mileage in the books cannot be said to reflect behavior that would cause fatigue. Time in
the driver’s seat, not total mileage, is relevant to fatigue.
The fourth point shows that Duenas and Maldanado recorded different times for
when they arrived in Phoenix on the day of the accident. Duenas recorded 12:45 p.m.
and Maldanado recorded 8:30 a.m. This four-hour discrepancy could be indicative of
28
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
fatigue. It certainly is more of a discrepancy than can be attributed to different watches.
And because the log entries were made on the day they arrived in Phoenix, it cannot
reasonably be attributed to faded memories.
With this understanding of the log books in mind, the Court must consider their
relevance to punitive damages – the only issue on which Plaintiff seeks to present them.
Arizona courts have recognized an “overarching principle . . . that the conduct giving rise
to punitive damages must be a proximate cause of the harm inflicted.” Saucedo ex rel.
Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 24 P.3d 1274, 1279 (Ariz. App. 2001). “The proximate cause
of an injury is defined in Arizona as ‘that which, in a natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the
injury would not have occurred.’” Id. at 1278 (quoting Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of
Am., Inc., 789 P.2d 1040, 1047 (Ariz. 1990)).
Plaintiff does not contend that the lack of inspections or any resulting safety
problems caused or contributed to the accident. Indeed, Plaintiff previously admitted that
a bald tire on the truck was not a proximate cause of the accident. Doc. 81 at 8. Plaintiff
instead claims that Duenas was driving while fatigued and failed to see or respond to the
red light. Log book entries that reflect a lack of inspections and a disregard for the safety
conditions of the truck therefore cannot be said to be a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s
injuries. Nor can the absence of total mileage entries be said to reflect activities that
contributed to the accident when the log books themselves show the activities of the
drivers for the full 24-hour period of each day. The lack of inspections and total mileage
entries did not, in a natural and continuous sequence, produce the accident. Stated
differently, a reasonable jury could not conclude that the accident would not have
occurred if Duenas and Maldanado had inspected the truck or recorded their total
mileage. Because these inaccuracies are not evidence of events that proximately caused
Plaintiff’s injuries, they are not relevant to punitive damages. Saucedo, 24 P.3d at 1279.
The Court will grant the motion in limine on these inaccuracies.
28
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The same is not true of the discrepancies in arrival time. The four-hour difference
between Duenas’ and Maldanado’s contemporaneous log books could be viewed as
evidence of fatigue. The Court therefore will deny the motion in limine with respect to
these entries. Plaintiff may present the page from each driver’s log book that reflects this
discrepancy, assuming proper evidentiary foundations are laid. The pages may not be
used to argue the points that have been excluded above.
Given this ruling, the Court also concludes that the motion in limine should be
granted with respect to Plaintiff’s desired reference to 49 C.F.R. § 395.8. The regulation
required Defendants to maintain accurate log books with respect to specific categories of
information, and would be relevant if the jurors were asked to review the log books and
compare the drivers’ entries to the requirements of the regulation, something that will not
occur given the Court’s ruling above.
The Court concludes that admission of the
regulation would unnecessarily complicate the jury’s task and may result in confusion
when there is little or no evidence to which it applies. The Court also concludes that the
reference to criminal prosecution in the regulation could result in unfair prejudice that
substantially outweighs the very limited probative value of the regulation. The Court
therefore will exclude the regulation under Rule 403.1
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. 108) is granted in
part and denied in part as set forth above.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2013.
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
27
28
Given the rulings in this order, the Court also wishes to make clear, if it has not
in prior orders, that evidence of the bald tire will not be admissible. As noted, Plaintiff
concedes that the bald tire did not cause or contribute to the accident, and it therefore is
not relevant on the question of punitive damages under Saucedo.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?