969 F.3d 625
6th Cir.2020Background
- On Oct. 23, 2014, 13-year-old A.K. missed his school bus after the Durham School Services bus arrived about seven minutes early; the driver (Linda Threat) left shortly after (about nine seconds) and A.K., having run home for his bicycle, was later struck by a truck and severely injured.
- The Kochers sued the truck driver (settled) and Durham for negligence; Durham removed to federal court. The jury found Durham negligent but apportioned fault: Kochers 56%, truck driver 28%, Durham 16%; Tennessee law bars recovery when plaintiff is >50% at fault, so judgment for Durham entered.
- At trial the district court excluded Durham’s employee handbook and other internal policies and also excluded the Kochers’ proffered expert (Ted Schueler), ruling the case was simple and the handbook could not establish legal duty under Tennessee law.
- The Kochers appealed the evidentiary exclusions and sought a new trial; Durham filed a conditional cross-appeal on the duty question.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it did not decide whether exclusion of the handbook/expert was erroneous but held the Kochers failed to show the exclusions affected their substantial rights (harm), applying Shinseki’s principle that in civil cases the appellant must show prejudice; Durham’s cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Durham’s internal policies/employee handbook | Handbook admissible to show negligence, notice, training, and to inform comparative-fault apportionment under Eaton factors | Handbook inadmissible under Tennessee law to establish legal duty; risk jury will equate internal rules with legal duty | Court upheld exclusion (without deciding correctness) as harmless error — Kochers failed to show it affected substantial rights; jury already found Durham negligent and key management expectations were admitted via testimony |
| Exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert (Schueler) | Expert would have explained industry standards, training/monitoring deficiencies, and aided comparative-fault assessment | Expert not needed because case was simple; his national-standard opinions were irrelevant to Tennessee duty | Exclusion affirmed as harmless — Kochers did not show Schueler’s exclusion affected comparative-fault outcome; he had not offered opinions directly apportioning fault |
| Harmless-error standard and burden of proof on appeal | Appellants urged application of the Sixth Circuit’s "fair assurance" harmlessness test and argued errors were prejudicial given narrow margin | Durham and majority relied on Shinseki: in civil cases appellant must show error affected substantial rights (no presumption of harmlessness in appellee) | Court applied Shinseki: Kochers bore burden to show prejudice and failed to do so; judgment affirmed and cross-appeal dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (appellant in civil appeals must demonstrate prejudice; tie goes to the verdict)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error framework for assessing whether an error substantially affected outcome)
- Beck v. Haik, 377 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2004) (discussing harmless-error standards and the "fair assurance" test)
- Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. 1994) (nonexclusive factors for juries to apportion comparative fault)
- Schrand v. Federal Pacific Elec. Co., 851 F.2d 152 (6th Cir. 1988) (articulating the "fair assurance" harmless-error test)