Higgins v. Hicks Co.
756 F.2d 681 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Improper closing arguments by counsel constitute reversible error only if they are both improper and prejudicial to the extent of destroying a favorable verdict, and a new trial is not warranted where the district court has given curative instructions and the remarks, though improper, do not meet this high threshold.
Facts:
- The Hicks Company, under contract with the State of South Dakota, was resurfacing a 5.4-mile stretch of the passing lane of eastbound Interstate 90 with asphalt, but not the driving lane.
- This construction left a 3-4 inch ridge over which a driver had to maneuver to move from the driving lane to the passing lane.
- After sunset, Steven Martinez lost control of his motorcycle when moving from the driving lane to the passing lane on this stretch of highway and was fatally injured.
- Mallard Teal also lost control of his vehicle when changing lanes on this 5.4-mile stretch and sustained injuries.
- Plaintiffs (Linda Higgins, as trustee for Martinez's heirs, and Mallard Teal) claimed The Hicks Company and the State of South Dakota were negligent for opening the lanes without adequate warning signs.
- Defendants denied negligence and claimed Martinez and Teal were contributorily negligent for operating their motorcycles at an unreasonable speed and failing to keep a proper lookout.
- Steven Martinez's widow, Gayle Martinez, testified that her husband was a reformed alcoholic who had not consumed alcohol or drugs for three years prior to his accident.
- Mallard Teal testified that he had not been drinking prior to his accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Higgins, trustee of the heirs and personal representative of the estate of Steven Martinez, and Mallard Teal (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against The Hicks Company and the State of South Dakota (defendants).
- A jury in the district court returned a verdict favorable to The Hicks Company and the State of South Dakota.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- Linda Higgins and Mallard Teal (plaintiffs/appellants) appealed the jury verdict and the denial of their new trial motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying a new trial motion when counsel for the defendants made improper and prejudicial remarks during closing arguments, when the court provided curative instructions to the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Fagg, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' new trial motion, because while counsel's closing arguments were improper, they did not rise to the level of reversible error given the court's curative instructions. The court acknowledged that counsel's remarks, suggesting Martinez and Teal might have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol without evidentiary support, and disparaging Martinez's past drug use as 'selfish abusive habits,' were improper. The court emphasized that counsel's arguments must be limited by the evidence and law pertinent to the issues. However, the district court instructed the jury on at least two occasions that closing argument comments of counsel are not evidence. Although the question was close, the court concluded that a reversal was not warranted. The court also affirmed the district court's rulings on other issues, including that the jury instructions on proximate cause and duty of care (when considered as a whole) were proper, that evidence of the state's liability insurance was properly excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 411 as irrelevant, that the denial of a directed verdict was proper due to conflicting evidence, and that evidence of the absence of prior accidents was properly admitted as relevant to the defendants' knowledge of any dangerous condition.
Analysis:
This case establishes a high bar for overturning a jury verdict based on attorney misconduct during closing arguments, emphasizing that even strongly condemned improper remarks may not warrant reversal if the trial court provided curative instructions. It reinforces the principle that arguments must be tethered to evidence and that the appellate court grants significant deference to the district court's handling of objections and motions for a new trial. The case also provides guidance on the application of evidentiary rules concerning liability insurance (Fed.R.Evid. 411) and the admissibility of evidence of the absence of prior accidents, clarifying their relevance to issues like knowledge of a dangerous condition.
