Opinion ID: 884240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Are the Lynches entitled to a new trial because of defense counsel's remarks regarding Neil Lynch's prior motorcycle accident?

Text: The final pretrial order listed five legal issues the parties sought to have decided before the commencement of trial. The first issue was: Whether the fact of and settlement of litigation arising out of Neil Lynch's 1984 motorcycle accident should be excluded at trial. On the morning of trial the Lynches moved that no mention be made of the facts and settlement of litigation arising out of Neil Lynch's 1984 automobile accident. When the Reeds' counsel inquired as to the scope of the motion and whether it included Lynch's receipt of disability benefits, the Lynches' counsel replied: It's everything. The court excluded evidence of the settlement but left open the question of whether evidence of Lynch's resulting injuries might be admissible. In cross-examining Lynch about his mental distress claim, the Reeds' counsel asked Lynch the following question, which was objected to by the Lynches' counsel: And you associated that mental distress, however, not with this accident, but your motorcycle accident, correct? It is clear that this was a legitimate line of cross-examination relating to the nature of Lynch's motorcycle injuries, an issue which the court earlier had ruled would be handled as it came up. Therefore the Reeds' counsel did not violate the court's exclusionary rule as to the settlement of the motorcycle accident suit. We affirm the District Court on this issue. In summary, we hold that the District Court did not err in excluding evidence of OSHA and ANSI standards as substantive evidence of the Reeds' negligence in its order granting the Reeds' motion in limine. However, since the Reeds opened the door to the minimum safety standards during direct examination of their expert, the District Court abused its discretion in preventing the Lynches from fully cross-examining the Reeds' expert on these standards, and the Lynches are therefore entitled to a new trial. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for a new trial. NELSON, REGNIER, TRIEWEILER, GRAY and HUNT, JJ., concur.