Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02534/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

BETTY DeSMET and 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARY LOUISE PIPPITT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

APR 1 3 J989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

TURBES PAYLESS LUMBER CO., 

ROBERT TURBES and 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-2534 

(D.C. No. C86-0428B) 

(D. Wyo.) 

MONTE J. GIBBS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

This diversity case arises from an automobile accident which 

occurred on the Yellowstone Highway in 1983. Plaintiff-appellant 

Betty Desmet (Desmet) was driving a recreational vehicle; 

plaintiff-appellant Mary Louise Pippitt (Pippitt) was a passenger. 

They were turning off the highway and into a souvenir shop when 

they were struck by a lumber truck driven by defendant-appellee 

Monte Gibbs (Gibbs) and owned by defendant-appellee Robert Turbes. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the law of the case, res 

judicata, or ,collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-2534 Document: 010110035115 Date Filed: 04/13/1989 Page: 1 
A jury determined that: 1) plaintiff Desmet was 60% negligent and 

defendant Gibbs was 40% negligent and 2) the negligence of 

defendant Gibbs was not a proximate cause of the injuries of 

plaintiffs Desmet or Pippitt. Accordingly, plaintiffs took 

nothing by their complaint. The district court entered judgment 

dismissing the complaint and later denied plaintiffs' motion for a 

new trial. Our jurisdiction to review this case arises under 28 

u.s.c. § 1291. 

On appeal, plaintiffs first contend that the records of 

plaintiff DeSmet's treating chiropractor should not have been 

admitted in their entirety due to a lack of an adequate 

foundation. According to plaintiffs, the lack of a foundation 

resulted in the trial court's admission of inadmissible hearsay. 

As we see it, plaintiffs also are arguing that certain portions of 

the records should not have been admitted because they pertain to 

a preexisting condition. See Fed. R. Evid. 402 (relevant evidence 

admissible) & 403 (exclusion of relevant evidence due to unfair 

prejudice). The notes and records that were admitted contained 

the statements of the treating chiropractor and plaintiff Desmet. 

Defendants first note that the plaintiffs stipulated to the 

foundation and authenticity of exhibits identified in the pretrial 

order. Moreover, we recognize that discretion lies in favor of 

admitting business records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), Higgins v. 

Martin Marietta Corp., 752 F.2d 492, 497 (10th Cir. 1985), and we 

are satisfied that these records were within the ambit of Rule 

803(6). The jury was entitled to consider any preexisting 

condition as well as the chiropractor's opinion that the accident 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2534 Document: 010110035115 Date Filed: 04/13/1989 Page: 2 
, was responsible for plaintiff DeSmet's discomfort,~ rec. vol. 

III at 452. The district court acted well within its discretion. 

We suspect that the remaining issues that the plaintiffs 

raise concern damages. Plaintiffs argue that the district court 

should have admitted evidence concerning the cost of hiring 

additional workers at her husband's bakery due to her injuries. 

The district court determined that plaintiff Desmet was entitled 

to offer evidence concerning lost wages, but not concerning losses 

to her husband's business. The district court relied on a tax 

return showing that plaintiff Desmet clearly was an employee of 

the business. On this record, the trial court acted within its 

discretion. 

Finally, plaintiffs suggest that the jury's failure to award 

plaintiff Pippitt damages was against the weight of the evidence. 

In failing to award damages, the jury was consistent with its 

determination that the defendants were not liable. Need we say 

that in the absence of liability, an award of damages cannot be 

expected? 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered by the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-2534 Document: 010110035115 Date Filed: 04/13/1989 Page: 3