Mansfield et al v. United States of America

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion in limine (docket no. 46 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

Case 4:18-cv-00278-BLW Document 54 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MARK L. MANSFIELD and THERESA
A. MANSFIELD, individually, and on
behalf of their minor child CM,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:18-CV-278-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion in limine filed by the plaintiffs. The
motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court
will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND FACTS
On March 16, 2017, plaintiff CM, a minor child, and his dog Kasey were
playing in the area about 300 yards from their home. CM saw what looked like a
pipe protruding from the ground. He did not know that the “pipe” was an M/44
cyanide bomb placed by the Government to kill wolves and coyotes that might be
preying on livestock. No warning signs were installed. CM pulled on the device
and it exploded, spraying cyanide on CM’s face, left eye, left arm, and his legs and
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1

Case 4:18-cv-00278-BLW Document 54 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 4

his chest, leaving an orange powdery residue on him. The explosion also sprayed
cyanide on Kasey. While CM survived the incident, the dog died. The family –
CM and Mark Mansfield, his father, and Theresa Mansfield, his mother – filed this
lawsuit to recover damages for their injuries. The Government has agreed not to
contest negligence and the remaining issues are causation and damages.
On December 16, 2020, the Court granted the Government’s motion for
partial summary judgment, and dismissed (1) all personal injury claims based on
cyanide exposure; (2) all claims based on a fear of future harm; (3) Mark and
Theresa Mansfield’s claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress; and (4) CM’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Mansfields have now filed a motion in limine seeking to “exclude
objections or arguments as to the value of Kasey, the Mansfield’s late dog.” See
Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 46).
ANALYSIS
The Mansfields argue that as owners of Kasey, they are qualified to testify to
his value and that the Government “has no way of valuing Kasey” so that “[a]ny
denial of or objection to [the Mansfields’] valuation would be nothing more than a
speculative, unsupported shot in the dark.” See Brief (Dkt. No. 46-1) at p. 4. The
Mansfields argue further that “any dispute as to [the Mansfields’] valuation of

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2

Case 4:18-cv-00278-BLW Document 54 Filed 07/24/20 Page 3 of 4

Kasey must come in the form of an expert opinion” and the Government has failed
to disclose any such expert.
If the Mansfields are arguing that the Government should be prevented from
cross-examining them on their testimony of the value of Kasey, their motion in
limine must be denied. Motions in limine are authorized under Rule of Evidence
104(a) but subsection (e) of that Rule states that it does not limit the right of a party
to introduce evidence that “is relevant to the weight or credibility of other
evidence.” In other words, the Government remains free to challenge the weight or
credibility of the Mansfields’ testimony regarding the value of Kasey and to make
arguments based on those challenges, such as that their testimony should not be
believed, that the jury should give little weight to certain particulars of their
testimony, and that their valuation is too high.
The Mansfields clarify their argument somewhat in their reply brief, arguing
that the Government should be limited from “presenting evidence on or making
speculative arguments as to Kasey’s value.” See Brief (Dkt. No. 49) at p. 3. But
they do not identify any specific evidence or “speculative arguments” that they
seek to exclude. Without that specificity, any exclusion order would be unfairly
vague. Of course, the Mansfields retain the right to object at trial to any specific
evidence the Government offers and the Court will rule at that time on that
particular evidence.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3

Case 4:18-cv-00278-BLW Document 54 Filed 07/24/20 Page 4 of 4

For these reasons, the motion in limine must be denied.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion in limine
(docket no. 46) is DENIED.

DATED: July 24, 2020
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 4