Opinion
CARSC-CV-2020-015
02-07-2022
Gail Carlson and Cathy L. Carlson, Individually and jointly as Guardians On Behalf of Patsy A. Carlson, an Incapacitated person, Plaintiff v. Halley R. Kelley And DASCO, Inc., Defendants
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND PROCEDURAL ORDER
Currently pending before the Court are four (4) Motions in Limine filed by the Defendants that were contested. The Court has reviewed the motions, the objections, the replies, and considered the arguments of counsel presented at the Zoom hearing on January 25, 2022. The Court issues the following orders related to the Motions in Limine:
1. DASCO's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Kyle White. In its motion, D ASCO seeks to limit rather than entirely exclude the expert testimony of Kyle White. There is no dispute that Kyle White does have experience and training in the area of accident reconstruction. He will therefore be able to testify to matters within his area of expertise regarding the accident, which shall include the impact of any obstructions, including any snowbanks, on the line of sight of either motorist. What is lacking on this record is evidence that Kyle White has experience or training in the area of snow removal. DASCO's Motion is granted . Absent sufficient evidence of experience or training in the area of snow removal/ Kyle White will be prohibited from offering expert testimony as to snow removal techniques, standards/ or safety practices.
2. Kelley's Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Maine Motorist Handbook. In her motion, Kelley is seeking to exclude the Maine Motorist Handbook (hereinafter "the Handbook") from being referenced or admitted at trial. As the court understands it, Plaintiff is seeking to introduce the Handbook for purposes of providing the jury with basic safety concepts related to stopping distances or response times. Kelley contends that the Handbook is irrelevant, would confuse the issues or mislead the jury, and is inadmissible hearsay. The court notes at the outset that Plaintiffs response references the "most recent edition" and there is no evidence in this record as to whether Kelley was aware of the information contained in this document, at any time. More significantly, Plaintiff did not dispute the contention that the designated experts for this case took issue with the accuracy of the stopping distances set forth in the Handbook. The court is concerned that the Handbook is general information, that does not account for the various particular circumstances in this case related to speed, weight of the vehicle, road condition, slope or grade, tires, etc. The probative value of this general information, not tied to the circumstances in this case, is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues or misleading the jury. M.R.Evid. 403. Kelley's Motion is granted . The Maine Motorist Handbook shall not be referenced or admitted at trial regarding stopping distances or response times.
3. Kelley's Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Severity of Plaintiff s Injuries in Relation to the Speed of Defendant's Vehicle. In her motion, Kelley seeks to exclude evidence of or testimony regarding the allegation that Plaintiff's injury pattern would be different, resulting in less severe injuries, had Defendant Kelley been traveling at a lower speed. Plaintiff's response makes clear that Plaintiff is not seeking to have either accident reconstructionist testify regarding different injuries that might have been sustained at different speeds or points of impact, as that is clearly outside their area of expertise. Rather they may be asked to testify regarding vehicle positioning and stopping distances at different speeds, which is within their area of expertise. How that testimony about factors not present in this accident would assist the jury in determining the degree of negligence attributable to each party in this case is unclear to the court. Clearly, testimony as to what did occur including the vehicle speeds, positioning, and stopping distances as well as the injuries actually sustained, would assist the trier of fact. Further, there has been no expert designated to testify about potential injuries that could have been sustained had the accident occurred differently. To the extent that Kelley's motion seeks to exclude evidence regarding injuries that might have been sustained had the accident occurred differently, Kelley's Motion is Granted. Beyond that, the Motion is denied.
4. Kelley's Motion in Limine to Limit Recovery of Medical Bills Paid by Medicare/Medicaid/MaineCare to the Amount Paid. In her Motion, Kelley is seeking to limit the evidence regarding medical expenses to the amount actually paid by Medicare, Medicaid and/or MaineCare. Plaintiff contends that this would violate the collateral source rule. Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329, 1336 (Me. 1979). The court finds the reasoning set forth in the Order in Gilbert v. Lembark, CV-11-31 (Stokes, J.) persuasive. Kelley's Motion is Granted, in part. Evidence of both the amount billed and the amount actually paid for medical services will be allowed, except as to the identity of the payer.
TRIAL PREPARATION : The court generally uses jurors for two-month terms. Each term begins with juror orientation, including completion of juror questionnaires. To move this matter to trial, the court intends to include case specific questionnaires to identify those jurors that would be excused for particular cases due to our limitations regarding spacing and capacity. Each party shall file with the court their trial exhibit and trial witness lists, and any requested voir dire for jury selection by MARCH 18, 2022.
The clerk is directed to include this matter in our Trial Management Conferences for the end of March, 2022, to allow us to identify jury selection and trial dates.
The clerk is instructed to incorporate this Order by reference into the docket pursuant to M.R.CIV.P. 79(a).