BABCOCK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 101

ORDER - 83 Motion in Limine is DENIED (See Order). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 6/1/2020 (Copy mailed per distribution list). (TMC)

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 101 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 403

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
EUGENE RAY BABCOCK,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE
Mr. Babcock has sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act
for injuries he sustained after he slipped and fell in a shower maintained by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1, 5-10. The government has filed a
motion in limine, dkt. 83, asking the Court bar all “evidence regarding Mr.
Babcock’s alleged disabilities, and the alleged failures of Defendant to
accommodate them,” dkt. 84 at 4. The government argues that this evidence
would be prejudicial and distract from the relevant issues. Id. Mr. Babcock
opposes the motion. Dkt. 85.
If evidence “clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose,” the Court
may issue a pretrial order in limine excluding it from further consideration.
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997).
Unless evidence meets this standard, “evidentiary rulings must be deferred
until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved
in context.” Id. Here, Mr. Babcock’s claim is under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, which incorporates “the law of the place where the act or omission
1

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 101 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 404

occurred,” so Indiana law governs. Dkt. 84 at 2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
1346(b)(1)).
To prevail in his claim of negligence under Indiana law, Mr. Babcock
must prove: “(1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of
that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused
by the breach.” Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2007).
Under the first element, “when a party is in the custodial care of another . . .
the custodian has the duty to exercise reasonable care to preserve the life,
health, and safety of the person in custody.” Sauders v. Cty. of Steuben, 693
N.E.2d 16, 18 (Ind. 1998). This duty “will vary according to the facts and
circumstances presented in each case.” Id. For example, if a custodian knows
that a prisoner has suicidal tendencies, then “the standard of care required of
the custodian is elevated.” Id. at 19.
Here, the conditions of Mr. Babcock’s confinement, including his alleged
disability, are relevant to the duty of care the government owed him. The
government’s duty as a custodian varies depending on Mr. Babcock’s condition
and the circumstance of the jail. Id. Evidence related to Mr. Babcock’s alleged
disabilities and the government’s response to that disability, therefore, does not
meet the standard of “clearly is not admissible for any purpose.” Lopez, 161 F.
Supp. 3d at 662.
Furthermore, the government’s concerns about prejudice—that evidence
regarding his disability “would be unfairly prejudicial to Defendant by its
tendency to elicit sympathy for the Plaintiff”—are misplaced. This case will be
2

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 101 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 405

tried as a bench trial rather than a jury trial, so any concerns about prejudice
are significantly diminished. United States v. Shukri, 207 F.3d 412, 419 (7th
Cir. 2000) (“In a bench trial, we assume that the district court was not
influenced by evidence improperly brought before it unless there is evidence to
the contrary”); see also, City of Joliet v. Mid-City Nat. Bank of Chi., No. 05 C
6746, 2012 WL 5463792, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2012).
Therefore, the government’s motion in limine is DENIED. Dkt. [83].
SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/1/2020

Distribution:
EUGENE RAY BABCOCK
113 Clover Street
Moro, IL 62067
Neal Anthony Brackett
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Kathleen L. Matsoukas
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Kelly Rota
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
3

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 101 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 406

Allison Marie Scarlott
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Julian Clifford Wierenga
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

4