Gilberto Mendez Marquez v. Donald P. Lacina and Westwinds Real Estate Services, Inc., Defendants-Third Party v. Rodolfo Gonzalez and Rosario Gonzalez, Third Party, 15-1745

On Feb. 22, 2008 Mendez slipped and fell down exterior concrete stairs to his son’s apartment, sustaining severe injuries.
Plaintiff sued building owner Lacina and manager Westwinds, alleging negligent failure to keep the entryway clear of snow/ice; Lacina/Westwinds filed third-party claims against Rodolfo and Rosario Gonzalez (snow removal contractors).
During discovery Mendez produced an 11-months-after cell-phone video showing snow on the stairs and designated LBR Psychological Consultants (including Dr. Rosell) as medical witnesses; defendants moved in limine to exclude the video and Dr. Rosell’s deposition testimony on causation/permanency.
The district court granted the motions in limine, excluding the video and Dr. Rosell’s deposition (but received them as offers of proof); at trial the jury found Lacina and Westwinds not at fault.
On appeal Mendez argued the court abused its discretion by excluding (1) the video as impeachment evidence of Mrs. Gonzalez’s testimony about snow/clearing practices and (2) Dr. Rosell’s deposition on the issue of whether the fall caused cognitive deficits.
The appellate court affirmed: the video was minimally probative and cumulative to admitted photos and thus properly excluded; any error excluding Rosell’s testimony was harmless because the jury found defendants not liable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 11-months-after cell-phone video	Video impeaches Mrs. Gonzalez’s testimony that stairs don’t get snow and that Gonzalezes regularly kept them clear	Video is irrelevant to condition at time of fall and unfairly prejudicial; taken 11 months later	Exclusion affirmed: video not sufficiently relevant to conditions on Feb. 22, 2008 and largely cumulative to admitted photos
Admissibility of Dr. Rosell’s deposition (causation/permanency)	Testimony bears on whether fall caused cognitive deficits and affects plaintiff’s credibility	Expert opinions on causation/permanency were not timely disclosed and no expert was designated for those issues	Exclusion affirmed or harmless: defendants properly challenged expert disclosure; any error was harmless because jury ruled for defendants on liability

Giza v. BNSF Ry. Co., 843 N.W.2d 713 (Iowa 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Graber v. City of Ankeny, 616 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 2000) (relevance and admissibility principles)
McClure v. Walgreen Co., 613 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 2000) (test for whether proffered evidence changes probability of a consequential fact)
Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 686 N.W.2d 150 (Iowa 2004) (definition of relevant evidence under rule 5.401)
Horak v. Argosy Gaming Co., 648 N.W.2d 137 (Iowa 2002) (trial court discretion in 403 balancing)
Shawhan v. Polk Cty., 420 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1988) (errors in excluding damages evidence are not reversible when jury finds for defendant on liability)
Humphrey v. Happy, 169 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1969) (exclusion of admissible evidence that could not have changed result is harmless)
Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1999) (liberal view on admissibility of expert testimony)