Stovall v. Mack Trucks Inc et al

Filing 379

ORDER granting 344 Stovall's motion in limine to preclude evidence that Josh Stovall must have fallen asleep at the wheel; granting 345 Stovall's motion in limine to admit medical billing and to exclude evidence of collateral sources, with the understanding that Intervenor Municipal League Workers Compensation Trust's motion in limine 347 needs to be addressed by the Court once it hears from the attorneys; granting in part and denying in part 350 Stovall's ominibus m otions in limine as addressed in this Order; granting 355 Mack's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Ralph Scott to the extent explained in this Order; granting in part and denying in part 357 Mack's omnibus motion in limin e as addressed in this Order; and granting 358 Mack's motion in limine to exclude evidence of dissimilar vehicles. The Court will issue a separate ruling on Stovall's motion in limine regarding the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Act 359 or ma y address it at the pretrial hearing scheduled for 11/03/2022. As always, the Court's rulings on motions in limine are not final rulings on admissibility. The attorneys should request a bench conference prior to introducing a subject that has previously been excluded by a ruling on a motion in limine, and to err on the side of caution. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/21/2022. (llg) (Main Document replaced on 10/21/2022 pursuant to instruction from Chambers.)(cmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
BURRISS RICHARD STOVALL,
Administrator of the Estate of
RICHARD JOSHUA STOVALL, Deceased
vs.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:16-cv-713-JM

MACK TRUCKS, INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Pending are several motions in limine that need to be resolved.
1. Plaintiff Burriss Richard Stovall, Administrator of the Estate of Richard Joshua
Stovall, Deceased (“Stovall”) filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence that Josh Stovall
must have fallen asleep at the wheel and that is what caused his accident. 1 Mack Trucks, Inc.
(“Mack”) responded that it intends to present Josh’s medical records, the testimony of Erin
Holleman, APN, and the testimony of Josh’s ex-wife Meghan Tadlock regarding what Mack
repeatedly characterizes as a “history of a daytime sleepiness condition.” 2 The Court finds that
the evidence from Josh’s medical records, Erin Holleman, and Megan Tadlock is inadmissible
under both Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) and 403. The motion in limine is granted.
2. Stovall filed a motion in limine to admit medical billing and to exclude evidence of
collateral sources, insurance, and workers’ compensation coverage. 3 Mack advised the Court by
email that the parties have worked together on the issue of the admission of medical bills and
records and that it does not oppose the motion on collateral sources. However, a couple of days
after Stovall filed this motion, Intervenor Municipal League Workers’’ Compensation Trust filed

1

Doc. No. 344.
Doc. No 369.
3
Doc. No. 345.
2

a motion in limine regarding its need to put on evidence of workers’ compensation benefits it
paid in order to prove its potential entitlement to subrogation. 4 Neither Stovall nor Mack
responded to that motion. The parties are directed to advise the Court if they have come to an
agreement on how and when this evidence will be submitted.
3. Stovall filed an omnibus motion in limine 5 on the following topics:
a. The hiring of counsel. This motion is not opposed and is granted.
b. Good character evidence. This motion is granted in part; Mack will be allowed to
discuss and introduce evidence concerning only the benefits of the model of the Mack model
MRU.
c. Evidence of Mack’s compliance with industry or regulatory standards “that have
nothing to do with the issues in the case.” Mack responded that it does not intend to offer
specific evidence of its compliance with every industry or regulatory standards but that it should
be able to submit evidence that it complied with all industry and regulatory standards in the
design and testing of the subject Mack Model MRU-613. The Court agrees. To the extent that
Mack would offer irrelevant evidence of compliance with standards that are not applicable in this
case, the motion is granted.
d. Lack of government safety requirements on a particular topic as evidence that the truck
is reasonably safe. This motion is granted in part and denied in part. Mack cannot argue that the
lack of safety regulations requiring airbags in heavy commercial trucks is dispositive of the issue
that the MRU-613 was reasonably safe, but the lack of a safety regulation requiring an airbag for

4
5

Doc. No. 347.
Doc. No. 350.

2

Class 8 trucks is relevant and admissible but not dispositive.
e. Alleged federal preemption. This motion is not opposed and is granted.
f. Congressional intent as to regulations. This motion is denied on the grounds that it is
too vague.
g. Any reference to settlement, settlement discussions, or settlements with other parties.
This motion is not opposed and is granted.
h. Spoliation and attempts to explain away missing records that should exist under the
company’s record retention rules. This motion is denied. Stovall is not to argue or elicit
testimony about the Court’s involvement with any discovery disputes. The Court is not going to
give a spoliation instruction. The parties can request clarification on this ruling, if it is needed, at
the pretrial hearing set for November 3, 2022.
4. Mack filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Ralph Scott as an expert witness in this
case. 6 Mack seeks to exclude Dr. Scott’s opinion testimony on the value of statistical life
(“VSL”) as being unreliable and irrelevant. The Court joins with other courts in this district in
finding that the VSL testimony is inadmissible. See Crouch v. Master Woodcraft Cabinetry,
LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00078 KGB, 2021 WL 4150206, at *4–5 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 13, 2021) (quoting
Hannibal v. TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc., No. 4:16CV00904 JLH, 2018 WL 3797500 (E.D.
Ark. Aug. 9, 2018):
As the Hannibal court explained:
No court applying Arkansas law has ruled as to whether expert testimony may be
admitted to assist the jury in determining loss of life damages. An overwhelming
majority of courts from other jurisdictions, however, have concluded that the
methodology adopted by Dr. Summary does not meet the Daubert standards and
6

Doc. No. 355

3

may not be admitted into evidence. Smith v. Jenkins, 732 F.3d 51, 66 (1st Cir.
2013); Kurncz v. Honda North America, Inc., 166 F.R.D. 386, 388-89 (W.D.
Mich. 1996). Dr. Summary explains in her report that the value of a statistical life
methodology is based upon the trade-off between risk and money. It involves the
assignment of monetary values to death risks based upon how much persons are
willing to spend for a small reduction in the risk of death. Dr. Summary's value
here is based upon government studies used to assign values to human lives in
conducting cost/benefit analyses for potential government projects. The First
Circuit in Smith has explained why this is not a reliable methodology for
determining the value of a human life. 732 F.3d at 66-67. In addition to being
unreliable, Dr. Summary's analysis would not assist the jury in determining what
value Krista Hannibal placed on her own human life. It has nothing to do with
Krista specifically. Cf. id. at 67 (“Even assuming that Dr. Smith's formula is a
reliable measure of the value of life, it was of no assistance to the jury in
calculating Smith's loss of enjoyment of life.”). 2018 WL 3797500, at *3.
This Court adopts the same reasoning and, therefore, excludes Dr. Scott's
proposed testimony that would present for the jury's “consideration the value that
government agencies place on the statistical value of life,” including the
documents published by the United States Department of Transportation and the
Environmental Protective Agency suggesting values of life.
To the extent that Stovall is offering Dr. Scott’s testimony on the value of a statistical life
methodology, the motion is granted. If Dr. Scott has given any opinions not relying on VSL, he
will be permitted to testify.
The Court agrees with Stovall that this motion is, in fact, an untimely Daubert motion.
However, the Court cannot knowingly permit evidence based on unreliable methodology to be
presented to the jury. If Stovall wishes to make a motion to continue the trial in light of this eveof-trial ruling, which may have a significant impact on the presentation of his damage evidence,
the Court will consider it. Such a motion should be made by Monday, October 24, 2022.
5. Mack filed an omnibus motion in limine 7 on the following four issues:

7

Doc. No. 357.

4

a. Exclusion of discovery disputes between parties. This motion is granted as to
discovery disputes and the Court’s involvement—Stovall is prohibited from introducing
evidence of discovery-related motions or Court orders. Stovall can introduce facts regarding the
existence of airbag documents and Mack’s retention policies. As previously stated, the Court is
not giving a spoilation or adverse inference instruction in this case.
b. Exclusion of evidence related to the New York City Department of Sanitation
(“DSNY”). Mack seeks to exclude evidence and argument that the DSNY requested that a
frontal airbag system be implemented in the Mack LE model refuse trucks it planned to purchase
since it is a different model truck than the one Josh was driving, a MRU-316 Mack. The motion
is granted in part and denied in part. The Court will allow evidence tending to show Mack’s
notice of defect. Specifically, Stovall argued in response that it plans to produce evidence that
(1) the City of New York requested a frontal airbag in its Mack LE garbage trucks in 2009 and
that (2) that IMMI quoted Mack $391,000.00 to engineer and tool the Mack LE for a frontal
airbag with a resulting cost per unit of $256 for frontal sensors and $154 per unit for the driver’s
frontal airbag. This testimony will be allowed. Stovall cannot, however, argue that the reason it
requested the frontal airbags was because its drivers were being seriously injured and dying due
to a lack of crashworthiness in Mack trucks or that Mack lied to the city of New York about the
costs and that had Mack been honest, the city would have paid the $391,000.00.
c. Evidence relating to “state-of-the-art” evidence post-2013. This motion is granted by
agreement.
d. Evidence relating to airbags (other than steering wheel airbags). This motion is also
granted by agreement.
5

6. Mack filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of or reference to dissimilar
vehicles. 8 Specifically, Mack argues that Stovall should be prohibited from introducing evidence
regarding airbag testing for other Class 8 trucks—including the Mach CH, the Mack Vision
2000, the Renault AE, and the Volvo FH. The Court agrees, and the motion is granted. Stovall’s
argument that “the central focus of this entire case is occupant protection or crashworthiness for
Class 8 trucks” misses the mark. Evidence regarding airbag testing for trucks other than the
Mack MRU-613 that was involved in the crash in this case are not relevant and will be excluded
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.
THEREFORE,
1. Stovall’s motion in limine to preclude evidence that Josh Stovall must have fallen
asleep at the wheel (Doc. No. 344) is GRANTED.
2. Stovall’s motion in limine to admit medical billing and to exclude evidence of
collateral sources (Doc. No. 345) is GRANTED, with the understanding that Intervenor
Municipal League Workers Compensation Trust’s motion in limine (Doc. No. 347) needs to be
addressed by the Court once it hears from the attorneys.
3. Stovall’s ominibus motions in limine (Doc. No. 350) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as addressed above.
4. Mack’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Ralph Scott (Doc. No. 355)
is GRANTED to the extent explained above.
5. Mack’s omnibus motion in limine (Doc. No. 357) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part, as addressed above.

8

Doc. No. 358

6

6. Mack’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of dissimilar vehicles (Doc. No. 358) is
GRANTED.
The Court will issue a separate ruling on Stovall’s motion in limine regarding the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Act (Doc. No. 359) or may address it at the pretrial hearing scheduled
for November 3, 2022.
As always, the Court’s rulings on motions in limine are not final rulings on admissibility.
The attorneys should request a bench conference prior to introducing a subject that has
previously been excluded by a ruling on a motion in limine, and to err on the side of caution.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2022.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7