Opinion ID: 203235
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Post-Trial Rulings.

Text: In the final analysis, the Hotel's assignments of error hinge upon the contention that the district court misconstrued the legal import of the first-phase verdict — a misconception that it says tainted the post-trial rulings. The most critical of those rulings was made in connection with the Rule 59(e) motion. Ordinarily, we review a district court's disposition of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. See Vasapolli v. Rostoff, 39 F.3d 27, 36 (1st Cir. 1994). But this is not the ordinary circumstance. Where, as here, the disposition of a Rule 59(e) motion depends entirely on a question of law, our review is plenary. See Pérez v. Volvo Car Corp., 247 F.3d 303, 319 (1st Cir. -8- 2001); see also Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds to Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir. 2004) (An error of law is, of course, always an abuse of discretion.). Since the cross-claim is at bottom a legal claim like any other, its dismissal is examined under the de novo standard of review. See Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Hardage, 985 F.2d 1427, 1433 (10th Cir. 1993) (applying de novo standard to lower court's dismissal of crossclaim). The underlying legal question is nuanced, and it is understandable why the able district judge struggled with it. We have the luxury of time and, after careful consideration of the record, we conclude that both the district court's disposition of the Rule 59(e) motion and its concomitant dismissal of the crossclaim rest upon an incorrect interpretation of the effect of the first-phase verdict. We elaborate below. The jury instruction, quoted above, scarcely could have been more lucid in its exposition of an uncontroversial rule of Puerto Rico tort law: that tortfeasors must answer not only for the damages immediately caused by their own negligence but also for any foreseeable aggravation thereof caused by the subsequent negligence of others. See Corey Lanuza v. Medic Emerg. Specialties, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d 92, 100 (D.P.R. 2002) (A person is responsible not only for those damages directly caused by his or her own negligence -9- but also for the aggravation of injuries brought about by the negligence of a third party in the course of providing medical treatment.); Merced v. Gobierno de la Capital, 85 D.P.R. 552, 55657 (P.R. 1962) (same). No one claims that this instruction is an incorrect statement of law, nor is there the slightest reason to believe that the jury did not scrupulously adhere to it. In any event, jurors are presumed to follow the trial court's instructions. See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 (1987); United States v. Sampson, 486 F.3d 13, 39 (1st Cir. 2007). The district court's explanation of how the instruction functioned, quoted above, was accurate. The court, however, appears to have misconceived the import of the ensuing verdict. Applying the instruction to the facts of this case, the verdict must be presumed to have encompassed all the damages caused by both the Hotel and the Hospital. But the district court seems to have construed this fact as equivalent to a finding that the Hospital bore no responsibility for any part of those damages. That is not correct. Seeking to avoid the inevitable result of this reasoning, the appellees asseverate that the Hotel failed to interpose a timely objection to the instruction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2), and that, therefore, the claim of error is forfeit. The appellees' premise is sound — no such contemporaneous objection was lodged — but the conclusion that the appellees draw is insupportable. -10- The Hotel has not challenged the instruction itself (indeed, as we have said, no party has identified any flaw in the instruction). The challenge here concerns the district court's interpretation of the effect of that instruction — no more and no less. That interpretation did not emerge until after the firstphase verdict had been returned. In such a situation, demanding that a party object at the conclusion of the charge in order to preserve its rights would be tantamount to demanding that a party anticipate a future hermeneutic misstep on the part of the trial court. The law does not require parties to possess that degree of clairvoyance. Cf. United States v. Ladd, 885 F.2d 954, 961 (1st Cir. 1989) (remarking that robes and gavels are the tools of a jurist's trade — not tea leaves or crystal balls). In an effort to dilute the force of the district court's interpretive bevue, the appellees emphasize a number of facts (such as expert testimony that Edward's fracture was so severe that it might have rendered him a quadriplegic even if he had received the best of care thereafter) suggesting that the jury might have concluded that the Hotel was to be held responsible only for the direct consequences of its own negligence. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument suggests that the jury might have awarded $1,844,000 even while excluding from the amount awarded any damages flowing from shortcomings in Edward's care at the Hospital. -11- That is not enough to render the court's error harmless. The possibility that the jury could have followed such a path, as opposed to persuasive evidence that the jury actually did so, is insufficient to overcome the Hotel's presumptive right to pursue its cross-claim and motion for setoff. See United States v. Carney, 387 F.3d 436, 449 (6th Cir. 2004) (observing that speculation, conjecture, empty hypothesizing, creative guesswork, and wishful thinking are insufficient to overcome presumption); Breeden v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 115 F.3d 749, 753-54 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding in multiple defendant tort context that presumption was not overcome by mere speculation that jury ignored specific instruction). To say more on this point would be supererogatory. We conclude that the district court erred as a matter of law in its assessment of the effect of its own instruction and, thus, erred in its interpretation of what the first-phase verdict signified. Under the instruction as given, the award encompassed both the damages attributable to the Hotel's beachfront negligence and the aggravating damages attributable to the Hospital's alleged malpractice. Consequently, the district court erred in foreclosing further litigation; the Hotel was entitled to some process by which it could test how the plaintiff's total damages — $1,844,000 — should be allocated as between it and the Hospital. The district -12- court should not have denied the Rule 59(e) motion or dismissed the cross-claim without pursuing that inquiry.