Honomichl v. Menard, Inc

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion in Limine (See Order Text). Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 12/2/2016. (des)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
SCOTT HONOMICHL,
Plaintiff,
No. C 16-4008-MWB

vs.
MENARD, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
___________________________

This case arises from injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff Scott Honomichl on
June 3, 2013, when a shelving unit with product collapsed and fell on him while he was
shopping at a store in Sioux City owned by defendant Menard, Inc. Menard’s has
admitted liability, leaving only causation of damages by Menard’s conduct and the
amount of damages for trial. Trial is set to begin on December 12, 2016. This case is
before me on Menard’s November 1, 2016, Motions In Limine (docket no. 12).
Honomichl filed no timely resistance to the Motions.
Menard’s First Motion In Limine is to exclude evidence of settlement negotiations.
This Motion is granted, pursuant to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Menard’s Second Motion In Limine is to exclude evidence of liability insurance
during the trial. This Motion is granted, pursuant to Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
Menard’s Third Motion In Limine is to exclude evidence of negligence, fault, or
liability, on the grounds that such evidence is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, in light
of Menard’s admission of liability. Thus, Menard argues that only the most basic facts

of the accident should be admissible. I agree, after balancing the very limited probative
value of the challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, pursuant to
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. While Honomichl and anyone else may
testify to their firsthand observations of what happened, they may not testify as to the
how or why, nor will evidence that Honomichl was purportedly shielding his minor son
from falling merchandise be admissible. This Third Motion In Limine is granted.
Menard’s Fourth Motion In Limine seeks to exclude evidence of future medical
expenses, loss of future earning capacity, and loss of past wages or income, based on
Honomichl’s failure to make adequate pretrial disclosures of relevant evidence. The
parties now agree that the only damages that Honomichl will seek at trial are damages
for past and future mental and physical pain and suffering and damages for past and future
loss of full function of the mind and body. Thus, the evidence challenged in this Fourth
Motion In Limine is no longer at issue, and this Motion is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2016.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

2