KIMMEL v. PONTIAKOWSKI et al

Filing 77

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry)GRANTING in part/DENYING in part dfts' motions in limine 61 63 65 67 . ****SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS***Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 11/9/14. (sm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DIANE KIMMEL,

:
No. 3:13cv2229
Plaintiff
:
:
(Judge Munley)
v.
:
:
ZBIGNIEW PONTIAKOWSKI and
:
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., :
Defendants
:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of November 2014, defendants’
motions in limine (Docs. 61, 63, 65 & 67) are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing
evidence of wage loss, loss of income and loss of future earning
capacity (Doc. 61) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a.

Defendants’ motion to preclude evidence of wage loss and
loss of income is GRANTED as unopposed; and

b.

Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff’s
loss of future earning capacity is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
i.

The court will deny defendants’ motion to exclude
evidence of plaintiff’s diminished future earning capacity
regarding her plans to return to work as a nurse.

ii.

The court will grant defendants’ motion to exclude
evidence of plaintiff’s diminished earning capacity
pertaining to her plans to open a bakery out of her home;

2.

Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of medical
expenses or costs (Doc. 63) is DENIED;

3.

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing
evidence of injuries not causally related to the incident (Doc. 65) is
DENIED with regard to injuries that plaintiff’s doctors report were
caused by the accident; and

4.

Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from referring to
Defendant Pontiakowski as a “professional driver” or asserting that a
commercial motor vehicle driver owes a higher duty of care (Doc.
67) is GRANTED as unopposed.
It is further ORDERED that plaintiff may question defendants as to

their duty of care without reference to Defendant Pontiakowski’s status as
a commercial motor vehicle operator.

BY THE COURT:
s/ James M. Munley
JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY
United States District Court