2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-18-2009 

# Michelle W int e rs v . M arin a D i s t D ev C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2464

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Michelle W

int e r s v . M arin a Di s t D ev C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1727. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1727H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe * D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 08- 2464

__________ M I CH ELL E A N D RO BE RT W I N TER S, A p p e llan ts

v. M AR I NA DI STRI CT D EVELO PM ENT C O. , LLC

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- 5937) (M a g istra te J u d g e : H o n o ra b le M . F a ith A n g e ll)

__________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 6, 2009

__________ B efore: B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es, and A C K E R M A N , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 18, 2009)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________2

A C K E R M A N , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. P lain tiff -A p p e llan t M ich e lle W in ter s (“ P lain tiff ” ) f e ll fro m a c h a ir a t a c a sin o in A t l ant i c C i t y , N ew J er s eyand br oughts ui tagai ns tD efe ndant - A ppel l ee M ar i na D i s t r i ct D evel opm entC o. , L L C , ow nerof the B or gat a H ot el C as i no and Spa ( “B or gat a”) for i nj ur i es s he al l egedl ys us t ai ned. E vi dence of Pl ai nt i ff’ s hi s t oryof s ei zur es w as admi t t ed b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt a t tr ia l, a n d a ju ry su b s e q u e n tly f o u n d n o lia b ility o n B o rg a ta ’s p a rt . Fol l ow i ng t r i al , Pl ai nt i ff moved t o s etas i de the j uryver di ct , a mot i on w hi ch the D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed. Pl ai nt i ff a nd herhus band fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng e v id e n c e o f

P la in tif f ’s s e iz u re s , a n d w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ru lin g . I. P lain tiff a lleg e s th a t o n A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , sh e f e ll w h ile a ttem p tin g to sit o n a c h a ir i n fr ontof a s l otm achi ne on the pr emi s es of the B or gat a. Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s thats he s l i pped and fe l l on a cl earl i qui d s ubs t ance . B or gat a cont ends thati thad no ac tual orcons t ruct i ve not i ce of the l i qui d. A s a r es ul tof the ac ci dent , Pl ai nt i ff a s s ert s s he s uffe r ed s ever e and p erm an en t i n

juri es. T h ere w ere n o w itn esse s to the all eg ed fa ll b esid es P lai n ti ff ’s m o ther. Pr i ort o t r i al , Pl ai nt i ff f i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude evi dence of unr el at ed m e d ica l co n d iti o n s, a m o tio n w h ich w a s d e n ied b yM a g istra te J u d g e M . F a ith A n g e llO n M arc h 8 , 2 0 0 7 , w ith the c o n sen t of the p arti es, D istri ct Ju d g e N o rm a S h ap ir o 1 r efe rr ed thi s cas e t o M agi s t r at e J udge A ngel l t o conductal l pr ocee di ngs and or derthe en tryo f ju d g m en t i n ac co rda n ce w ith 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 3 6 (c) an d F ed . R . C iv. P. 73 (a). 3 (h e re in a f ter re f e rre d to a s th e “ D istric t C o u rt” ). W h e n th e D istric t C o u rt p re se n ted its 1 rul i ng ata fi nal pr etr i al confe r ence , Pl ai nt i ff’ s couns el s oughtcl ar i fi cat i on as t o w hether evi dence of Pl ai nt i ff’ s s ei zur es w as i ncl uded i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt sta ted th a t th e se izu re e v id e n c e w a s re lev a n t an d a d m iss ib le a t trial. M om ent s befor e the tr i al began, Pl ai nt i ff’ s couns el r enew ed hi s ar gum entthat ev iden ce o f P lai n ti ff ’s seizu res sh o u ld n o t be a d m itted a t tri al. H e u rge d that the s eizu re evi dence w as notr el evantbeca us e B or gat a w as notgoi ng t o as s ertthata s ei zur e ca us ed P la in tif f to f a ll. F u rt h e r, h e a s s e rt e d th a t th e s e iz u re e v id e n c e w a s u n d u ly p re ju d ic ia l. T he D i s tr i ctC our tagai n rul ed thatevi dence of Pl ai nt i ff’ s s ei zur es w as r el evantand a d m iss ib le a t trial. B o th p a rties in tro d u c e d se izu re e v id e n c e a t trial. D u rin g its c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, B o rga ta t o ld the jurythat itw as n o t argu ing that a se izure n ec essa ri lyca u sed P lai n ti ff ’s acc i dent . I ns t ead, B or gat a as s er t ed, even a s s um i ng ther e w as s om e ac cumul at i on of cl ear l i qui d, Pl ai nt i ff ha d notes t abl i s hed l i abi l i t ybeca us e s he di d notes t abl i s h t hatB or gat a had actual orcons t ruct i ve not i ce of t he exi s t ence of thi s condi t i on. B or gat a ar gued thati thad “a ve ryr eas onabl e mai nt enanc e pl an w hi ch w as pr event at i ve and r es pons i ve, ” and that Pl ai nt i ff’ s fal l w as “a s i m pl e i nci dentthatw as compl et el yand t ot al l ynotthe fa ul tof the B o rga ta. ” (A p p . at 12 . )4

O n A ugus t8, 2007, aft era tw o- daytr i al , a j uryr eturned a ve r di ctforB or gat a, det erm i ni ng t hatPl ai nt i ff ha d notpr oved bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence that B or gat a w as negl i gent . Subse quent l y , Pl ai nt i ff f i l ed a mot i on t o s etas i de the j uryver di ct and fora new t r i al pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59, cont endi ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng herm ot i on i n l i m i ne as i tr el at ed t o s ei zur es beca us e the s ei zur e evi dence w as notr el evantand i t s pr obat i ve val ue w as s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed by the dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of i s s ues orm i s l eadi ng the j ury . T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtden i ed W i nter s’ s m oti on , and P l ai nti ff n ow app eal s. T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 2 , an d this C o u rt exer ci s es j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. A. “W e r evi ew t he evi dent i arydet erm i nat i ons of the tr i al cour tunderan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” W es tv. P hi l a. E l ec. C o. , 4 5 F . 3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); G l as s v. P hi la. E l ec. C o. , 34 F. 3d 188, 191 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . I n t he cont extof a de ci s i on t o admi tor e x c lu d e e v id e n c e u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 , an a b u se o f d isc re tio n e x ists w her e thatdeci s i on i s s how n t o be “a rbi t r aryand i r r at i onal . ” B ha ya v. W est i ng ho use E l ec. C or

p. , 9 2 2 F .2 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); s ee al s o SE Cv. I

nf i ni t y G r oup C o. , 212 F. 3d 180, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “A n abus e of di s cr et i on i s a cl earerr ori n j udgm ent , and not s i m pl ya di ffe r entr es ul tw hi ch ca n ar guabl ybe obt ai ned w hen appl y i ng the l aw t o t he5

fac t s of the ca s e. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A n err oneous deci s i on t o admi tor excl ude evi dence does notcons t i tut e r ever s i bl e err orunl es s “a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof the partyi s aff

ect ed[. ] ” L i n k

s tr o m v . Go ld e n T

. Fa r ms , 8 8 3 F . 2 d 2 6 9 , 2 6 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ); Fed. R . E vi d. 103( a) . T he s ame st andar d i s appl i ed w hen the D i s t r i ctC our tr evi ew s an e v id e n tia ry ru lin g in th e c o n te x t o f a m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l. See Li nk v. Mer cede s - B enz of N . A m . , I nc. , 788 F. 2d 918, 921- 22 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( “W her e a c ont ent i on fora new t r i al is b a se d o n th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f e v id e n c e , the trial c o u rt h a s g re a t d isc re tio n . . . w h ich w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d o n a p p e a l ab se n t a f in d in g o f a b u se .”); s ee al

s o Thre adgi l lv. A r m s tr ong W or ld I ndus . , I nc. , 928 F. 2d 1366, 1370 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). B. U n d e r th e F e d e ra l R u les o f E v id e n c e , ev id e n c e m a yo n lyb e a d m itt e d if it i s “r el evant . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 402. E vi dence i s r el evanti f i thas “anyt endenc yt o m ake the ex ist en ce o f a n yfa ct th at i s o f c o n seq u en ce to the d eterm ination o f th e a cti o n m o re pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i t houtthe evi dence . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 401. T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th e se izu re e v id e n c e re lev a n t o n tw o g ro u n d s. F irst, it ru led th a t “P lain tiff ’s s e izu re h isto ry , im m e d iate lyb e f o re a n d a f

ter th e B o rg a ta in c id e n t, w as c learlyrelev an t . . . as o n e p o tential ca u se o f P lai n ti ff ’s ac cide n t. ” (A p p . at 16 . ) P lain tiff su f f e re d a b o u t tw e n tyse izu re s in th e tw o m o n th s le a d in g u p to th e B o rg a ta i nci dent . “W hi l e havi ng a s ei zur e, ” the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, “Pl ai nt i ff w oul d exper i ence6

s om e vi s ual change s . ” (I d. at15. ) D ur i ng one hos pi t al i zat i on tw o w eeks befor e the B or gat a i nci dent , Pl ai nt i ff “ fel tt hathervi s i on w as cl os i ng i n on her [. ] ” (I d. ) Th ese epi s odes w er e s ever e enough thatPl ai nt i ff w or e a moni t ort o chec k fori r r egul ar heartbeats and w as accom pan i ed b yher m otherather hom e and atthe B orgat a i n case Pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed a s ei zur e. W i t hi n a w eek be for e the B or gat a i nci dent , Pl ai nt i ff w as ta k in g th e f

o llo w in g m e d ic a tio n s : E f f e x o r, P e rc o c e t, A S A , a n d Ib u p ro f e n . Pl ai nt i ff a l s o s uffe r ed s ei zur es aft erthe B or gat a i nci dent , i ncl udi ng one im m e d ia te ly af

te r t h e in c id e n t w h e n B o rg a ta e m p lo y e e s p la c e d h e r i n a w h e e lc h a ir . I ndeed, “[w ] hen B or gat a per s onnel as ked forherm edi cal hi s t ory , Pl ai nt i ff t ol d t hem abouthers ei zur es . ” ( A pp. at16. ) Pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed s ever al m or e s ei zur es i n t he day s and w eeks fol l ow i ng t he B or gat a i nci dent , and w as hos pi t al i zed f ora w eek i n l at e Sept ember 2 0 0 4 f o r e v a lu a tio n o f

h e r s e iz u re s . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng di d notcons t i tut e an a bus e of di s cr et i on beca us e the evi dence s ugges t ed thatPl ai nt i ff’ s condi t i on m ayhave a ffe ct ed hervi s ual per cept i on, and thus w as of s om e cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of ca us at i on, an i nt egr al el ementof P la in tif f ’s n e g lig e n c e s u it. C

f . M ahon v. R eadi ng C o. , 367 F. 2d 25, 27 ( 3d C i r . 1966) ( “Test i m onyof a pr i ori l l nes s i s bot h r el evantand mat er i al i n a bodi l yi nj uryact i on t o an i nqui ryaboutl at erl os tw or k t i m e. W hetherther e i s anycaus al connec t i on exi s t i ng b e tw e e n th e tw o is f

o r t h e ju ry to d e c id e .” ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o rul ed thatthe s ei zur e evi dence w as “r el evanti n t he cont ext7

o f th e s c o p e o f

P la in tif f ’s p u rp o rt e d in

ju ri e s ,” a n d b ye x te n s io n , to P la in tif f ’s c re d ib ility. ( A pp. at16. ) Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m ed that , as a r es ul tof the fa l l , s he s uffe r ed bac k i nj ur i es and lum b ar rad iculo p athy , an d h ad to g o the h o sp it al sev era l t im es f o r trea tm en t. H o w ev er, d u rin g trial, e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted th a t sh o w e d th a t P lain tiff w a s a d m itt e d to A tlan tic C ityM e d ica l C e n ter f

o r “ c o n v u lsio n s,” n o t b a c k p a in , an d th a t, i n a v isit a m o n th late r to anotherhos pi t al , Pl ai nt i ff f ai l ed t o m ent i on heral l eged f al l atB or gat a w hen s he des cr i bed h e r m e d ica l h isto ry . “E v id e n c e o f P lain tiff ’s s e izu re h isto ryw a s th u s re lev a n t to Pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m of l um barr adi cul opathyas a r es ul tof herfal l atthe B or gat a, and, there fo re, t o h er c red ibil ity . ” (A p p . at 17 , D ist . C o u rtO p . at 7.) G iven the c o n side rab le de fe ren ce af fo rde d the D istri ct C o u rto n ev iden ti ary m at t er s , the D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no abus e of di s cr et i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatt he s ei zur e evi dence w as r el evant . T hi s evi dence had a “ t endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of [a] fac tt hati s of cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of the ac t i on” — caus at i on and damages ( and cr edi bi l i t y ) — “more pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i t houtt he ev iden ce . ” F ed . R . E v id. 40 1 . T h is C o u rtsee s n o rea so n to d istu rb th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s f in d in g . N orw i l l t he C our tdi s turb t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thatthe s ei zur e evi dence w a s n o t u n d u lyp re

ju d icia l. R e lev a n t ev id e n c e “ m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , or m i s l eadi ng t he j ur y . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 403. “[T] he pr ej udi ci al eff ectof admi t t i ng the8

evi dence m us tr i s e t o t he l evel of cr eat i ng an unfa i radvant age f orone of the part i es for the evi dence t o be exc l uded underR ul e 403. ” C ol em an v. H om e D epot

, I nc. , 306 F. 3d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 4 3 -4 4 , n .6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). Pl ai nt i ff t ender s s ever al ar gum ent s conce r ni ng undue pr ej udi ce, butal l r el at e t o a sim il ar the m e: j u rysp ec u lat ion . “A ll o w an ce o f e v iden ce o f th e se izure s ca u sed the ju ry t o s pecul at e thatt he i nj ur i es al l eged w er e ca us ed bys ei zur es . ” ( Pl . ’ s B rat22. ) T he D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd isp e n se d w ith th is a rg u m e n t: E vi dence cannotbe dee m ed unfa i r l ypr ej udi ci al m er el ybeca us e the j uryhas r oom fors om e s pecul at i on as t o t he evi dence ’ s exac tr el evanc e t o t he acc i denti n ques t i on. I f anyt hi ng, D efe ndant ’ s s t at ementthathe w as not ar gui ng t hata s ei zur e ca us ed the ac ci dentw oul d have e l i m i nat ed or se v e re lyd im in ish e d a n yc h a n c e th a t th e ju ryw o u ld h a v e sp e c u late d th a t a s ei zur e w as i n fac tt he ca us e. ( A pp. at18. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o found thatthe s ei zur e evi dence w as nots pecul at i ve beca us e i tw as bas ed on medi cal r ecor ds and Pl ai nt i ff’ s ow n t es t i m ony . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d id n o t cle a rlye rr in its ju d g m e n t b e c a u se it b a se d its f in d in g s o n a n a p p ro p ria te b a lan c e o f

th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e a n d p o ten tial p re ju d ice o f th e se izu re e v id e n c e . S im p ly p u t, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ac t “a rb itrar ilya n d irra tio n a llyin its f in d in g th a t an yu n f

a ir p re ju d ic e d id n o t o u tw e ig h th e re le v a n c y ” o f P la in tif f ’s s e iz u re h is to ry. Ryderv. W es t i nghous e El ec. C or

p. , 128 F. 3d 128, 133 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng s h a ll s ta n d . III . F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m .