Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00273/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00273-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

KERRY HOGLAND, et al. PLAINTIFFS 

VS. 3:14CV00273 JTR 

TOWN & COUNTRY GROCER 

OF FREDERICKTOWN MISSOURI, INC. DEFENDANT 

 

 

ORDER 

 Defendant, Town & Country Grocer Of Fredericktown Missouri, Inc. 

(“Town & Country”), has filed an Omnibus Motion in Limine that includes twelve 

individual motions. Doc. 61. Plaintiff, Kerry Hogland (“Hogland”), individually, 

and, as guardian ad litem on behalf of her minor child H.T., has filed a Response. 

Doc. 88. She opposes only one of Town & Country’s Motions, concerning the 

admissibility of the post-accident photographs of the parties’ vehicles. 

 The Court will address each of these Motions separately. 

 1. “Liability Insurance Coverage” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

reference to liability insurance coverage is granted. 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 7
2 

 2. “Exclusion of Witnesses” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to invoke the rule 

excluding witnesses, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 615, is granted. 

 3. “Settlement Negotiations” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

reference to settlement negotiations is granted. 

 4. “Objectionable Deposition Testimony” 

 Town & Country requests exclusion of “[a]ny mention or reference to any 

deposition testimony [to] which a proper objection was made until such time as the 

Court has been afforded the opportunity to rule on the objection.” Doc. 61 at 4. 

Without objection, this Motion is granted. 

 In a July 2, 2015 telephone conference with counsel, the Court explained the 

procedure it follows to resolve, well in advance of trial, objections to deposition 

testimony that may be introduced into evidence. Counsel must immediately begin 

the implementation of that procedure as described below.

 The attorneys have until and including Wednesday, July 15, 2015 to provide 

opposing counsel with copies of the deposition testimony they intend to introduce 

at trial. The portions of those depositions that each side intends to introduce into 

evidence must be highlighted with a yellow marker. Counsel will then have until 

and including Monday, July 20, 2015 to note in the margin of the deposition the 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 7
3 

ground for their objections to the proposed testimony. Counsel must immediately 

return the depositions, with the noted objections in the margin, to opposing 

counsel. Opposing counsel will then have until and including July 24, 2015 to 

review those objections and note in the margin (using a different color ink) a short 

response to each objection. 

 All of the highlighted depositions, with the noted objections and responses, 

must be delivered to the Court on or before July 27, 2015. The Court will then rule 

on each of the objections (using red ink), in the margin of the depositions, and 

promptly return them to the parties so they can prepare the final transcripts or 

videos of the depositions that contain only the testimony that will be admitted into 

evidence at trial. The original marked-up depositions (with counsels’ objections, 

responses, and the Court’s rulings on those objections) will be marked as Court’s 

Exhibits and made a part of the record. 

 5. “Financial Status/Punitive Damages Argument” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

reference to the parties’ “net worth” or “punitive-type” financial information is 

granted. 

 6. “Reference to Any and All Discovery Disputes and Rulings in 

 this Case” 

 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

reference to any discovery disputes and the Court’s rulings is granted. 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 7
4 

 7. “Ruling on Motions” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

reference to the Court’s rulings on motions is granted. 

 8. “The Golden Rule” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

“Golden Rule” arguments is granted. 

 9. “Sending a Message” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude “send-amessage” arguments is granted. 

 10. “Any Portion of the Accident Report (Motor Vehicle Collision 

 Report)” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude the 

motor vehicle accident report is granted. 

 11. “Post-Accident Photographs of the Subject Vehicles” 

 Town & Country argues that all post-accident photographs of the parties’ 

vehicles should be excluded from evidence because: (1) it has admitted liability; 

(2) Hogland has not asserted a property-damage claim; and (3) “the photographs 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 7
5 

are being used to, and will, create an unfair emotional bias against defendant — 

not to establish a fact of consequence.”1 Doc. 61 at 7. 

 Town & Country primarily relies on Harris v. Damron, 267 Ark. 1141, 594 

S.W.2d 526 (1980). In that case, the decedent was a pedestrian who was struck and 

killed by an automobile driven by defendant. On appeal, the Court considered 

whether the trial court had properly excluded several “gruesome” photographs: one 

taken at the accident scene showing the decedent’s severed arm; and other 

photographs taken in the morgue showing the decedent’s body and arm. The Court 

affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the photographs under Rule 403, noting that 

the excluded photos “tended [not] to prove anything in dispute.” Id. at 258. 

 Although Town & Country has admitted liability, the extent of Hogland’s 

and H.T.’s injuries and damages are very much “in dispute.” Under the Rule 403 

balancing test, even “gruesome” photographs may be admissible “if they tend to 

shed light on any issue, to corroborate testimony, or if they are essential in proving 

a necessary element of a case, are useful to enable a witness to testify more 

effectively, or enable the jury to better understand the testimony.” Aka v. Jefferson 

Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 344 Ark. 627, 42 S.W.3d 508 (2001). Under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 

the post-accident photographs of the parties’ vehicles are clearly relevant and 

certainly probative as to Hogland’s and H.T.’s claims for damages for the injuries 

 1

 Town & Country has not provided the Court with the photographs it seeks to exclude. However, all 

indications are that the photos fairly and accurately depict the condition of the parties’ vehicles after the August 7, 

2012 accident. 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 7
6 

they sustained in the accident. See McElwain v. Harris, 2006 WL 931920, *3 (D. 

N.H. April 6, 2006) (in an admitted-liability case, post-accident photographs of the 

parties’ vehicles were “highly probative” to the decedent’s mental anguish in the 

moments preceding her death, and therefore admissible, despite defendant’s 

argument that they would “inflame the jury.”); Rizzo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 

2009 WL 928351, *5 (N.J. Super. Ct. A.D. April 8, 2009) (unpublished) (in an 

admitted liability case, post-accident photographs of the plaintiff’s car following a 

“violent” collision supported the plaintiff’s claim for mental anguish — “such that 

plaintiff's fear for her life when the car flipped over, and her current apprehension 

when riding in a car, are understandable.”); Hunt v. Long, 763 So.2d 811, 819 (La. 

Ct. App. 2000) (in an admitted liability case, affirming the admission of a postaccident photo of the “demolished” plaintiff’s vehicle — rejecting the defendant’s 

argument that “the photo’s inflammatory prejudicial effect outweighed any 

probative value”); see also Pinkerton v. Davis, 212 Ark. 796, 207 S.W.2d 742 

(1948) (trial court properly admitted photographs of the plaintiff’s damaged car). 

 While the photographs of Hogland’s car and the Town & Country vehicle 

may show graphic evidence of the impact of the collision, the Court concludes that 

the significant probative value of those photographs, as they relate to Hogland’s 

and H.T.’s damages, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 6 of 7
7 

prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to 

exclude those photographs is denied. 

 12. “Testimony as to Duty” 

 Without objection, Town & Country’s Motion in Limine to exclude any 

reference “to any duty defendant owed plaintiff” is granted. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Town & Country’s Omnibus 

Motion in Limine (doc. 61) is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART. 

Town & Country’s Omnibus Motion in Limine to exclude the post-accident 

photographs of the parties’ vehicles is DENIED. The remainder of Town & 

Country’s Omnibus Motion in Limine is GRANTED. 

 Dated this 10th day of July, 2015. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-00273-JTR Document 91 Filed 07/10/15 Page 7 of 7