Robert v. Maurice ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 28, 2023
No. 22-30221
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Reginald Robert,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Jamie Maurice; Knight Transportation, Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:18-CV-11632
______________________________
Before Davis, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Reginald Robert filed a civil action in district court after allegedly
being sideswiped by a tractor-trailer while driving in New Orleans in 2017.
The driver of the tractor-trailer, Jamie Maurice, and his employer, Knight
Transportation, Inc. (collectively “defendants”) maintained that Robert
intentionally caused the accident pursuant to a larger scheme. After the jury
returned a verdict only partially in Robert’s favor and did not award him
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
damages, Robert filed this appeal challenging various rulings of the district
court. For the reasons stated herein, we AFFIRM.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 28, 2017, Robert was driving a 2014 Toyota Tundra
carrying three passengers on U.S. Highway 90 in New Orleans. Maurice was
driving a 2015 Volvo tractor-trailer owned by Knight Transportation, Inc.,
and was attempting to merge onto U.S. Highway 90 from the on-ramp when
the two vehicles collided or sideswiped each other. Robert alleged that
Maurice misjudged his clearance and improperly merged lanes while acting
in the course and scope of his employment with Knight. The dash camera in
the tractor-trailer showed that the trailer crossed over the solid white line as
the truck merged.
On November 27, 2018, Robert filed a civil action in district court
against defendants, alleging negligence, liability, damages for injuries “not
limited to her [sic] neck and back,” and property damage. Defendants
answered, asserting an affirmative defense that Robert intentionally caused
the accident.
The district court ruled on various pretrial motions, including the
following which are of significance here. By order dated September 26, 2019,
the district court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment, dismissing the claims alleging Knight’s negligence because Knight
stipulated that Maurice was in the course and scope of his employment at the
time of the accident. Importantly, Robert agreed to a consent judgment
granting the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, which left
2
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
his remaining claims against Maurice for negligence and against Knight for
vicarious liability. On May 14, 2021, the district court denied Robert’s
motion for partial summary judgment on medical causation. On October 15,
2021, the district court denied Robert’s motion for partial summary
judgment regarding defendants’ affirmative defense that he intentionally
staged the accident. On March 11, 2022, the district court denied Robert’s
motion in limine to exclude and/or limit certain cell phone records. This
motion sought to exclude the following pieces of evidence: cell phone records
as both inadmissible and a discovery sanction; the indictment of a non-party,
Cornelius Garrison; testimony of Garrison’s criminal defense attorney,
Claude Kelly; and Garrison’s deposition testimony in which he invoked his
Fifth Amendment right.
The matter was tried before a jury on March 21-23, 2022. The jury
found that Maurice caused or contributed to the November 27, 2017 accident
and therefore implicitly rejected defendants’ affirmative defense. But the
jury also found that the accident was not the cause of Robert’s injuries and
awarded no damages.1 Robert appealed.
_____________________
1
The verdict form in this case asked jurors to answer several questions. The first
question asked, “Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant
Jamie Maurice caused or contributed to the November 28, 2017 motor vehicle collision?”
The jury answered “YES.” The second question asked, “Do you find by a preponderance
of the evidence that the November 28, 2017 motor vehicle collision was the cause of
Plaintiff’s injuries?” The jury answered “NO” to this question and therefore did not
answer the remaining questions on the verdict form.
3
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
This court reviews a district court’s decision to admit evidence for an
abuse of discretion. See Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 250 (5th Cir. 2002). A
district court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous
view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Williams
v. Manitowoc Cranes, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 607, 615 (5th Cir. 2018). Erroneous
decisions under Rule 404(b) are subject to a harmless error inquiry. See
Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, “even if a district court has abused its discretion, [this court]
will not reverse unless the error affected the substantial rights of the parties.”
Williams, 898 F.3d at 615 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The admission of a person’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment is
generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co.
of Md., 45 F.3d 969, 977 (5th Cir. 1995). This court explained:
The admissibility of a non-party’s exercise of the Fifth
Amendment against a party, however, is a legal question that
we must review de novo. Nevertheless, if such evidence is not
inadmissible as a matter of law, the district court’s specific
determination of relevance and its evaluation of a potential
Fed. R. Evid. 403 problem are reviewed for abuse of
discretion.
Id.This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment
as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.
Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 485 (5th Cir. 2008). Rule 50 provides that
a judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate when “a party has been
fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable
4
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party
on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
DISCUSSION
I. Whether the District Court Erred in Admitting Evidence Pertaining
to Cornelius Garrison.
Robert asserts that the district court erred in admitting evidence
pertaining to Cornelius Garrison that included his indictment, deposition
testimony, and the testimony of his defense attorney (the “Garrison
evidence”). Robert denies any connection to Garrison and says that the
“defendants turned this case into a trial of Cornelius Garrison, a non-party
murder victim, who was indicated [sic] for insurance fraud in 2020
concerning his involvement in staging his own 2015 accident.”
Garrison was an alleged ringleader in a conspiracy to stage more than
fifty vehicle accidents with tractor-trailers or buses in New Orleans.
Allegedly, Garrison and his confederates netted hundreds of thousands of
dollars in settlements from commercial carriers and insurance companies.
Garrison was indicted for a scheme involving an accident in 2015 as well as
conspiring with others to stage an accident in 2017. Garrison was murdered
prior to his arraignment.
Garrison’s indictment, which was admitted in this case, stated that
Garrison’s scheme “targeted commercial vehicles, including tractor-trailers,
that were changing lanes and would strike the commercial vehicle or tractor-
trailer in their blind spot.” At trial, defendants called Garrison’s criminal
defense attorney to testify about the indictment. Additionally, the district
5
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
court admitted Garrison’s deposition testimony, taken in this case, in which
he repeatedly asserted the Fifth Amendment. Taken together, defendants
used this evidence “to show Mr. Robert intentionally caused the alleged
accident subject of this litigation, with Mr. Garrison’s assistance, in a manner
extremely similar to the ‘accident’ Mr. Garrison allegedly intentionally
caused in 2015.”
To further support this affirmative defense, the defendants offered
the following evidence to connect Robert with Garrison: two phone calls
about a week before the accident, 2 both had the same counsel, the same
doctor, and that Robert’s accident occurred in the same area, during the same
time period, and was of the same type as other accidents in the scheme. 3
Moreover, testimony indicated that at least one additional vehicle stopped at
the time of the accident and that someone may have left the scene. 4
Robert carries the burden of showing that the admission of Garrison’s
indictment, deposition testimony, and testimony from his attorney were
prejudicial. See Williams, 898 F.3d at 615 (“The party asserting the error has
the burden of proving that the error was prejudicial.” (internal quotation
_____________________
2
Robert unsuccessfully attempts to dispute that there is any evidence Garrison
used the telephone number that Robert called twice about a week before the accident.
Robert also denies knowing Garrison.
3
Robert also asserts that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the
other evidence. Also, one of the medical forms indicated that Robert identified his attorney
as someone named “Shawn.”
4
Other evidence also established some discrepancies as to whether and how the
passengers knew one another, whether Robert was injured, and whether Robert was the
driver or a passenger.
6
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
marks and citation omitted)). Assuming without deciding that the district
court abused its discretion in admitting the Garrison evidence, Robert has
failed to show that such errors were prejudicial. The jury rejected
defendants’ affirmative defense by finding that Maurice was the cause of the
accident. Thus, the admission of the Garrison evidence, which was used to
support the defendants’ unsuccessful affirmative defense, was harmless.5
Robert argues that although he prevailed on the liability issue, the
defendants also used the Garrison evidence to “attack the issue of medical
causation—an issue the jury ruled against Plaintiff despite Defendants’
failure to present any medical evidence to the contrary.” As discussed in
more detail below, defendants pointed to evidence, independent of the
Garrison evidence, to support the jury’s finding that Robert’s injuries were
not caused by the November 28, 2017 accident. Thus, any error regarding
the admission of the Garrison evidence was harmless given that there was a
sufficient independent evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find a lack of
medical causation. See id. at 627 (holding that the district court’s error in
admitting certain evidence was harmless because independent evidence in
the record “provided the jury sufficient evidence to find [the defendant]
liable”). For these reasons, we conclude that any error the district court
made in admitting the Garrison evidence was harmless.
_____________________
5
Additionally, Robert has failed to demonstrate that he suffered substantial
prejudice as a result of the district court’s admission of the audio statement he made to
Progressive Insurance Company. See Brazos River Auth., 469 F.3d at 423.
7
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
II. Whether the District Court Erred in Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of Medical Causation.6
Robert asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “because the jury lacked any legally sufficient evidentiary basis to
conclude that Robert’s injuries were not caused by the accident based on the
uncontroverted evidence presented.” The district court denied Robert’s
motion, properly finding that there were disputed issues of fact for the jury
to decide. The defendants assert that Robert did not make a motion for
judgment as a matter of law. But the record indicates that Robert arguably
made an ore tenus motion.
However, Robert’s argument on this issue fails to consider that the
jury was free to disagree with his assessment of the evidence. Further, Robert
asserts that “all” of his treating physicians “confirmed that, in their medical
opinion, his injuries resulted directly from the accident at issue.” Of the
three record citations Robert offers in support of this argument, two citations
_____________________
6 Robert’s appeal of the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment as to
defendants’ affirmative defense is moot because the jury found Maurice at fault for the
accident. And, the denial of Robert’s motion for partial summary judgment as to medical
causation is also not subject to review, as we do “not review the pretrial denial of a motion
for summary judgment where on the basis of a subsequent full trial on the merits final
judgment is entered adverse to the movant.” See Black v. J.I. Case Co., Inc.. 22 F.3d 568,
569 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, as set forth in this section, the evidence adduced at trial
provided a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the defendants
on medical causation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
8
Case: 22-30221 Document: 00516803799 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/28/2023
No. 22-30221
are to testimony from Dr. Eric Lonseth, and the last citation is to testimony
from one of Robert’s passengers, Derrick Benn, who is not a treating
physician.
Contrary to Robert’s assertion, his treating physicians also confirmed
facts indicating otherwise. For example, on cross-examination, Lonseth,
Robert’s expert in pain management and anesthesiology, acknowledged that
Robert denied a prior medical history during his initial visit and did not tell
him about his preexisting neck and back injuries from similar accidents in
January 2015, March 6, 2014, and May 29, 2013. Dr. Tony Giang, a
chiropractor, testified to medical records that were actually signed by a Dr.
Hung Cao. Giang confirmed that Robert also did not tell his office about his
prior accidents in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the resulting neck and back pain, or
his three separate lawsuits. Robert also indicated on his intake paperwork
that he was the front passenger in the vehicle.
This testimony alone provides a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for
a reasonable jury to find for the defendants on medical causation. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 50(a). Thus, the district court did not err in denying judgment
as a matter of law.
For these reasons, we AFFIRM.
9