983 F.3d 1064
8th Cir.2020Background
- On July 22, 2014, Dustin Reinard was injured when his stand-up Crown forklift (which lacked a door by design) struck a pole; his foot was outside the operator compartment and his left leg was amputated.
- The Reinards sued Crown in Iowa state court alleging a design defect (omission of a door); Crown removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Crown defended by offering video simulations (crash tests with dummies) to show that adding a door increases risk of fatal injury in off-dock and tip-over accidents; the district court denied the Reinards’ motion in limine to exclude those simulations.
- Before trial Crown used photos from the simulations in a pre-voir dire “mini-opening” and referenced the simulations in opening; the Reinards nevertheless introduced the full simulations during their case-in-chief to "mitigate" their evidentiary effect.
- The jury returned a verdict for Crown; the district court denied the Reinards’ motion for a new trial, and the Reinards appealed primarily contesting admission of the simulations and the denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Reinards preserve/challenge admission of Crown’s video simulations? | Reinards: they preserved the challenge by timely moving in limine and the court’s pretrial ruling preserved the objection under Rule 103(b). | Crown: Reinards waived any objection by intentionally introducing the simulations at trial. | Held: Reinards waived objections by introducing the videos; waiver precludes appellate review. |
| Does Fed. R. Evid. 103(b) abrogate the rule that introducing evidence waives appellate challenge? | Reinards: Rule 103(b) means a definitive pretrial ruling preserves the right to appeal even without renewals at trial. | Crown: Rule 103(b) does not address waiver by affirmative conduct (e.g., introducing evidence); prior precedent still controls. | Held: Rule 103(b) does not negate waiver; prior case law (Huff/Ohler/Canny) governs. |
| If waived, may appellate court review for plain error? | Reinards: Even if they waived, the court should review admission for plain error (Spencer precedent). | Crown: Waiver (as distinct from forfeiture) extinguishes appellate plain-error review. | Held: Waiver bars plain-error review; court declines to reach plain-error analysis. |
| Was denial of new trial an abuse of discretion based on admission of simulations? | Reinards: The videos were central and prejudicial; admission was legal error and affected substantial rights, warranting a new trial. | Crown: Because Reinards waived challenge, they cannot base a new-trial claim on those evidentiary rulings. | Held: Denial of new trial affirmed because the evidentiary claim was waived; no abuse of discretion shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huff v. Heckendorn Mfg. Co., 991 F.2d 464 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding a party who introduces evidence waives appellate challenge to its admission)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000) (party introducing evidence generally cannot complain on appeal about its admission)
- Canny v. Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Bottling Grp., 439 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2006) (reiterating waiver when a party preemptively introduces evidence)
- McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396 (8th Cir. 1994) (framework for admissibility of experimental evidence; similarity-to-accident inquiry)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture and outlining plain-error standard)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (district court abuses discretion if it rests on erroneous view of law)
- Blodgett v. Comm’r, 394 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005) (waiver eliminates right to appellate plain-error review)
- Dunn v. Nexgrill Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2011) (experimental evidence admissibility falls on a spectrum; juror confusion concern)