Parker, et al. v. NGM Insurance Company, et al

Filing 97

ORDER AND REASONS denying 92 Motion in Limine regarding Evidence Contrary to The Egg Shell Plaintiff Rule. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/4/16. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBERT PARKER, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-2123

NGM INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to prevent defense counsel “from
soliciting testimony and/or evidence that would tend to contradict or run afoul of the
eggshell plaintiff rule as it related to both causation and damages.”1 The Defendants
oppose the motion.2 For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This personal-injury case arises from a motor-vehicle collision in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on August 21, 2014.3 On that date, Plaintiff Robert Parker was driving his 2012
Hyundai Sonata in a southerly direction on Tulane Avenue near its intersection with
Interstate 10 (“I-10”) in New Orleans. Also traveling southbound on Tulane Avenue at
that time was Defendant Edson Rivera, who was operating a 2003 Ford E250 utility van
owned and operated by his employer, Multitec, LLC. Rivera was driving directly behind
Parker’s vehicle. According to Parker, he began to slow down as he approached congested
traffic. It is undisputed that, as Parker slowed, he was rear-ended by the Ford van driven
by Rivera. As a result, on May 13, 2015, Parker filed suit against Rivera, Rivera’s employer
Multitec, LLC, and NGM Insurance Company (“Defendants”) in the Civil District Court

R. Doc. 92.
R. Doc. 95.
3 The Background Section of this Order and Reasons is taken, in part, from a prior Order and Reasons. See
R. Doc. 60 at 1.
1

2

1

for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.4 The action was removed to federal court on
the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction on June 16, 2015.5 Parker alleges, due to the
collision, he “sustained serious bodily injuries, including but not limited to his back, neck,
head, shoulders and extremities,” and seeks damages for “past and future mental anguish
and physical suffering, past and future expenses for medical care, including expenses for
travel to the physicians’ office, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and past and
future lost earnings, along with property damage to his vehicle.”6 Parker’s wife, Krista
Elaine Parker, also seeks damages for “loss of consortium, services, and society of her
husband.”7
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs admit that Plaintiff, Robert Parker, has a “prior history of back
problems.”8 In light of Parker’s prior back problems, the Plaintiffs seek an order from the
Court to “prevent the Defendants’ counsel from soliciting testimony and/or evidence that
would tend to contradict the eggshell plaintiff rule with regard to both causation and
damages.”9 Plaintiffs argue, in part, that all of the evidence of Parker’s prior medical
history and his well-documented history of back problems is “cumulative, prejudicial, and
runs afoul of the eggshell plaintiff rule.”10 Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend “counsel for
the defendants should not be permitted to circumvent the eggshell plaintiff rule in voir
dire or at trial with regard to suggesting that an aggravation of a pre-existing injury is
worth less than an injury with no pre-existing issues.”11

R. Doc. 1-1.
R. Doc. 1.
6 R. Doc. 1-1 at 4.
7 R. Doc. 1-1 at 4.
8 R. Doc. 92-1 at 2.
9 R. Doc. 92-1 at 4.
10 R. Doc. 92-1 at 4.
11 R. Doc. 92-1 at 4.
4
5

2

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, evidence of Robert Parker’s back problems that
pre-existed the accident-in-question is relevant and does not run afoul of Federal Rule of
Evidence 403.12 The Court will, however, prevent defense counsel from introducing
cumulative testimony at the trial.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine
regarding the eggshell plaintiff rule is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of July, 2016.
_____________ __________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court reminds the parties, however, that only exhibits which are the subject of testimony will be
admitted into evidence and provided to the jury during deliberations. The parties are also reminded that
the Court will conduct voir dire and that the parties may submit proposed questions for the Court to ask
during voir dire. In accordance with the Court’s scheduling order, such questions must be filed by August
8, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. Finally, with respect to any other limiting instructions or other matters addressed by
Plaintiffs in their motion in limine, the Court defers ruling until trial.
12

3