Gamerdinger v. Schaefer
603 N.W.2d 590, 1999 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 302, 1999 WL 1242473 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 406, evidence of a person's habit of responding to a particular situation with specific conduct is independently admissible to prove conformity therewith, without needing the opposing party to 'open the door'. Furthermore, a spoliation of evidence instruction is required when relevant evidence within a party's control is not produced without satisfactory explanation, allowing an inference that such evidence would be unfavorable.
Facts:
- Sharri Gamerdinger drove a motorized cart and Patrick Schaefer operated a forklift truck at Deere & Company's plant.
- Schaefer's forklift collided with Gamerdinger's motorized cart, causing Sharri Gamerdinger to claim personal injuries and Thomas Gamerdinger to claim loss of consortium.
- Witness Tim Davison observed Schaefer backing his forklift out of a semi-trailer and colliding with Gamerdinger's cart without sounding a horn, looking, or stopping.
- Witnesses Tim Davison and Jerry Linsey, co-workers of Schaefer for many years, observed Schaefer's consistent habit of driving erratically, including not looking for pedestrians or vehicles when backing out of trailers, and frequently hitting or nearly hitting objects.
- Davison and Linsey repeatedly complained to Schaefer's supervisors, Ron Mills and Bill Holmes, about Schaefer's unsafe driving habits over several years, but improvements were temporary or non-existent.
- Following the accident, Deere & Company's security personnel were called to the scene and took photographs of the damage sustained by Sharri Gamerdinger's motorized cart.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharri and Thomas Gamerdinger filed a personal injury lawsuit against Patrick Schaefer and Deere & Company in district court (trial court).
- A jury trial was held, which returned a verdict attributing 50% fault to Sharri Gamerdinger, 20% to Schaefer, and 30% to Deere, awarding Gamerdinger $10,776.04 for past medical expenses and $20,000 for future medical expenses, but no other damages.
- Judgment was entered in favor of Gamerdinger for $15,388.02 plus interest, reduced by her percentage of fault.
- Gamerdinger moved for a new trial, arguing the jury verdict was inconsistent because it awarded medical expenses but not corresponding amounts for pain and suffering and loss of function.
- The district court agreed with Gamerdinger's motion, suggested an additur of $40,000, and after both parties objected to the amount, sustained the motion for a new trial.
- Defendants (Schaefer and Deere) appealed the district court's grant of a new trial to the Iowa Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs (Gamerdingers) cross-appealed, raising two evidentiary issues.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding relevant habit evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 406 without requiring the opposing party to 'open the door' and by refusing a spoliation of evidence instruction when a party fails to produce relevant evidence within its control without satisfactory explanation?
Opinions:
Majority - Snell, Justice
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by improperly excluding relevant habit evidence and by failing to give a requested spoliation of evidence instruction when warranted. The court erred in excluding the plaintiffs' proffered evidence regarding Schaefer’s habit of negligent forklift operation. This testimony from co-workers Davison and Linsey, detailing Schaefer's long-standing failure to follow safety procedures when backing up and his consistent near-collisions, fell squarely within Iowa Rule of Evidence 406. This rule permits habit evidence to prove conformity with that habit on a particular occasion, and its admissibility does not depend on whether the defendants 'opened the door' during their examination of Schaefer. This evidence was relevant and probative to demonstrate the likelihood of Schaefer’s negligence and Deere’s knowledge of his conduct. The court also erred by not providing a requested spoliation of evidence instruction regarding the missing photographs of Gamerdinger's damaged cart. These photographs, taken by Deere's security personnel, were relevant to assessing the severity of Gamerdinger’s injuries. The defendants denied having any photographs during discovery. When relevant evidence within a party's control is not produced without a satisfactory explanation, an adverse inference—that the evidence would be unfavorable—may be drawn against that party, as established in precedent such as Quint-Cities Petroleum Co. v. Maas and Holmquist v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. The defendants' failure to produce the photographs necessitated the requested instruction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Iowa Rule of Evidence 406, affirming that specific habit evidence is independently admissible to prove conduct and does not require the opposing party to 'open the door.' It also reinforces the critical importance of proper discovery practices and the severe implications of evidence spoliation. The ruling establishes a clear standard for when a spoliation instruction is appropriate, emphasizing the adverse inferences a jury may draw against a party who fails to produce relevant evidence within its control without explanation. This serves to promote fairness in litigation by ensuring that parties cannot benefit from the unexplained absence of potentially damaging evidence, thereby impacting future cases involving evidentiary disputes regarding character, habit, and discovery obligations.
