Harold Whiting and Leatrice Whiting, Individually and as Husband and Wife, and Katrina Whiting v. Ricky L. Westray, Richardson Moving and Storage, Inc., Miami Valley Moving and Storage, Inc., Bekins Van Lines Company and the Bekins Company

Citations: 294 F.3d 943; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 12824Docket: 01-3490

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 28, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Harold Whiting, Leatrice Whiting, and Katrina Whiting filed a lawsuit against Ricky L. Westray and various moving and storage companies, following a severe car accident caused by Westray's negligence. The jury awarded a significant verdict in favor of the plaintiffs after a trial that featured problematic conduct by the plaintiffs' attorney, Timothy Schafer. Schafer made inappropriate remarks, violated court orders regarding objections, and made accusatory comments about the defense’s evidence during the trial. Despite these issues, the district judge found that Schafer's behavior, while not exemplary, did not prejudice the defendants' case and denied their motion for a new trial. The defendants appealed this decision, arguing that the misconduct warranted a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and noted that to succeed, the defendants must demonstrate both misconduct and prejudice. While the court acknowledged that Schafer's conduct constituted misconduct, it deferred to the district judge's assessment of whether the defendants were prejudiced, emphasizing the judge's unique position to evaluate the evidence and trial dynamics. The case ultimately focused on the serious injuries suffered by the Whitings due to the collision, which was not disputed as a result of Westray's negligence, with the trial centering solely on damages.

Most trial disputes centered on Harold's claim following an accident. Both Harold and his wife, Leatrice Whiting, testified about the accident's profound impact on their lives. Before the incident, Harold was a respected motor inspector and an active family member. Post-accident, he suffers from significant impairments, including childlike communication abilities, memory issues, loss of sexual function, chronic pain, and a severe limp, necessitating nearly constant care from family members. Attorney Schafer presented testimony from six physicians who confirmed Harold's permanent brain damage, spinal cord injury, and total disability. An economics professor estimated Harold's economic losses at over $6 million. The defense challenged the Whitings' medical evidence through cross-examination but did not provide any medical or economic expert testimony to counter the claims. Instead, they aimed to portray Harold as exaggerating his injuries, presenting three witnesses: a police officer who observed Harold driving speedily post-accident without apparent impairment, a contractor who noted Harold's speech changes, and a private investigator who recorded Harold in various activities. Despite this defense, the jury awarded Harold $6 million, Leatrice $1.22 million for loss of companionship, and Katrina $80,000. Concerns regarding Schafer's conduct were raised, but most alleged misbehavior occurred during sidebars, with the trial generally proceeding smoothly. The judge acknowledged improved decorum between attorneys as the trial progressed. The defense's claims of prejudice lacked specificity, and Schafer's alleged misbehavior did not hinder their ability to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

Defendants claim that Schafer's suggestion that videotapes were "altered" tainted the evidence against them. During a court session, Schafer expressed concerns about the tapes’ integrity, prompting the court to admonish him for making accusations without supporting witnesses. Despite this, the court allowed the tapes to be admitted into evidence. Defense attorney Patton argued that Schafer's comment was prejudicial and moved for a mistrial, which the court took under advisement, noting that Schafer should have raised the issue privately. The judge believed Schafer's statement did not prejudice the defendants for several reasons: the mistrial motion was not pursued further, the tapes were fully shown to the jury, and jurors were instructed that attorneys' statements are not evidence. Furthermore, defense counsel addressed the "alteration" accusation during closing arguments. The defendants also argued that the jury's award was excessive, but the court found substantial evidence from the Whitings, including testimonies from six physicians regarding Harold's severe injuries, and unrebutted expert testimony on over $6 million in economic losses, making the jury's verdict reasonable.

The jury was directly exposed to Schafer's behavior during the trial, leading to skepticism regarding claims that his conduct prejudiced the case. Despite the defense's assertions of Schafer's misbehavior, the jury's awards were notably closer to the defense's recommendations than to Schafer's requests, suggesting a lack of juror admiration for Schafer. He sought $20 million for Harold but received $6 million, which aligned closely with the expert's economic damage assessment, indicating the jury may not have compensated for non-economic damages. Similarly, for Katrina, Schafer requested $250,000 but was awarded about a third of that amount. The jury's decisions imply that they may have disregarded Schafer's claims of pain and suffering. Overall, the defendants failed to demonstrate that Schafer's conduct resulted in a prejudiced trial. Additionally, both attorneys faced admonitions from the judge for hindering evidence presentation, indicating shared responsibility for trial disruptions. The defendants did not argue for a remittitur based on verdict excessiveness, instead citing it as evidence of Schafer's misconduct. The verdict was affirmed.