Lexplug logoLexplug

Charter v. Chleborad

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
551 F.2d 246 (1977)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

While Federal Rule of Evidence 411 generally prohibits admitting evidence of liability insurance to prove negligence, it is admissible when offered for another purpose, such as to demonstrate a witness's potential bias or prejudice.


Facts:

  • In June 1973, a plaintiff working as a highway flagman was struck by a truck, causing extensive injuries to both of his legs.
  • The plaintiff was hospitalized and a defendant surgeon performed surgery on both legs.
  • Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced severe complications.
  • The plaintiff was subsequently transferred to another hospital where both of his legs were amputated above the knee.
  • During the ensuing malpractice trial, the defendant's rebuttal witness, John J. Alder, was employed in part by the same liability insurance carrier that represented the defendant surgeon.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant surgeon in federal district court.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • During the trial, the court prohibited the plaintiff's counsel from cross-examining a defense witness about his employment with the defendant's insurance company.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
  • The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing the district court erred in limiting the cross-examination.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Federal Rule of Evidence 411 permit a party to cross-examine an opposing witness about their employment by the defendant's liability insurance carrier to show the witness's potential bias?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. While evidence of liability insurance is generally inadmissible to prove fault, it is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 411 to show a witness's potential bias. The court reasoned that Rule 411 explicitly provides an exception for using evidence of insurance to show the 'bias or prejudice of a witness.' In this case, the fact that the defendant's impeachment witness, Mr. Alder, was employed by the defendant's insurance carrier was 'clearly admissible to show possible bias.' The court rejected the argument that the evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value under Rule 403, stating that the probative value here 'far outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice' and that Rule 403 was not designed for a 'blanket exclusion' of such evidence. Because the credibility of the plaintiff's expert witness was central to the case, the trial court's error in excluding the evidence of bias was not harmless and required a new trial.



Analysis:

This case solidifies a crucial exception to the general exclusion of liability insurance evidence in negligence cases. It clarifies that the need to expose witness bias under Rule 411 is a significant purpose that is not easily overcome by a general claim of prejudice under Rule 403. The decision empowers litigants to impeach the credibility of witnesses by revealing their financial or employment ties to a party's insurer. This precedent ensures that juries can receive a more complete picture of a witness's potential motivations, which is particularly critical in cases that hinge on competing expert testimonies.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Charter v. Chleborad (1977) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Charter v. Chleborad