Court Opinion

ID: 9730956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:29:19.95105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:11.568719
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I generally concur in a well-written opinion by my brother justice. However I must add some additional remarks and dissent in part.
The majority holds admitting evidence of the other accidents was error. I believe all the evidence was sufficiently probative and, while certainly prejudicial, the probative value substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect.
The majority infers they do not agree with the jury’s assessment of responsibility. I do not join in that inference and would make no comment other than to hold the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s findings.
I totally disagree with the majority’s rendition of the punitive damages. The majority states: “Cartegena was not driving appreciably faster than other vehicles on the highway....” However, a reconstruction expert opined Cartegena was traveling 61-65 miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour zone. Furthermore, not only did Cartegena not possess a commercial driver’s license, but the reasons were he was blind in his right eye and had failed the written exam. Both of these reasons were known to his superiors. Even a vice-president for NorthAmerican Van Lines testified that allowing an unsafe driver to operate a NorthAmerican Van Lines’ or NATEX shipment placed the public in an extreme degree of risk and placed people at risk for serious bodily injury. The jury heard ample evidence of NorthAmerican’s awareness of a problem with unqualified or unlicensed drivers. Moreover, a jury is not asked to set their common sense and life experiences aside. As part of the motoring public they appreciate the potential dangers of large, loaded trucks traveling at or above the speed limit. I would uphold the punitive damages and in this regard, I respectfully dissent.