Harvey v. Hall et al

Filing 42

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 26 motion in limine to exclude evidence disputing causation of plaintiff's injuries be and hereby is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES HARVEY JR.,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-10952

ROBERT HALL, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a motion in limine filed by Plaintiff James Harvey Jr.1 Plaintiff
seeks to exclude any evidence suggesting that Plaintiff’s bilateral facet arthropathy and
L5-S1 disk bulge were not caused by the subject accident. 2 The motion is opposed.3
Plaintiff filed a reply.4 For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff James Harvey Jr. alleges he suffered injury after Defendant Robert Hall
reversed a tractor and trailer into Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 19, 2016.5 Plaintiff was
also involved in a prior accident, which resulted in injuries.6 Plaintiff seeks to exclude any
mentioning, questioning, suggesting, or putting on any evidence that Plaintiff’s injuries
were not caused by the subject accident.7 Plaintiff argues that any evidence suggesting his
injuries were not caused by the subject accident would be unfairly prejudicial and could
not be relevant to this Court's determination of causation and damages because of
Louisiana's Housley presumption.8 Defendants argue that evidence suggesting Plaintiff’s

R. Doc. 26.
Id.
3 R. Doc. 28.
4 R. Doc. 35.
5 R. Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶3-5.
6 R. Doc. 26-1 at 1; R. Doc. 28-1 at 1.
7 R. Doc. 26-1 at 4.
8 R. Doc. 26-1 at 2-4.
1

2

1

injuries were not caused by the subject accident is relevant both to causation and
credibility.9
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable and
the fact is of consequence in determining the action. 10 Federal Rule of Evidence 403
permits a court to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the
jury.”11 “Unfair prejudice,” as used in Rule 403, is not to be equated with testimony simply
adverse to the opposing party.12 “Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial;  however, it
is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits
exclusion of relevant matter.”13
In Housley v. Cerise, the Louisiana Supreme Court established a presumption of
causation to aid plaintiffs in negligence cases.14 The presumption applies if the plaintiff
can establish that: (1) he or she was in good health prior to the accident; (2) subsequent
to the accident, symptoms of the alleged injury appeared and continuously manifested
themselves thereafter; and (3) there is a reasonable possibility that a causal connection
exists between the accident and the alleged injury.15 Where applicable, the presumption
shifts the burden of proof on causation to the defendant.16 The Defendant can defeat the
Housley presumption by showing that another particular incident could have caused the
injury in question.17

R. Doc. 28 at 3.
FED. R. EVID. 401.
11 FED. R. EVID. 403.
12 Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 427 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C.,
Inc., 561 F.2d 613, 618 (5th Cir.1977)).
13 United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1979).
14 Housley v. Cerise, 579 So. 2d 973 (La. 1991).
15 Id. at 980.
16 See, e.g., Poland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 885 So. 2d 1144, 1151 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2003).
17 See Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 650 So.2d 757, 761 (La. 1995).
9

10

2

Evidence suggesting that Plaintiff’s bilateral facet arthropathy and L5-S1 disk
bulge were not caused by the subject accident is relevant and highly probative with respect
to the issue of causation and is not unfairly prejudicial. Even if the Housley presumption
applies,18 Defendant is entitled to rebut the presumption. To do so, Defendant is
permitted to show that another particular incident could have caused the injury in
question.19 While such evidence may not be favorable to Plaintiff, it is not “unfairly
prejudicial” as contemplated by Rule 403.20 The prejudicial nature of such evidence is not
outweighed by its probative value.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude evidence disputing
causation of plaintiff’s injuries be and hereby is DENIED.21
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of November, 2018.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Neither party has requested the Court to apply the Housley presumption.
Maranto, 650 So.2d at 761.
20 FED. R. EVID. 403.
21 R. Doc. 50.
18
19

3