Joyce D. Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.
16-12919
| 11th Cir. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- In Dec. 2015, Joyce Higgs fell on a Costa cruise ship after allegedly tripping over a bucket of cleaning water; she sustained a fractured humerus and torn biceps tendon, requiring surgery with a plate and screws.
- Higgs sued Costa for negligence; at trial the jury found Costa 85% liable and awarded $1,316,326.01 (including past medical expenses and large awards for past and future general damages).
- During discovery Higgs disclosed 3–4 prior trip-and-fall incidents within the prior year; she moved to exclude that evidence under FRE 403 and the district court granted the motion, redacting prior-fall references from medical records.
- At closing, Higgs’s counsel told the jury Higgs had “never fallen before,” statements Costa could not rebut because prior-fall evidence had been excluded.
- Costa moved for a new trial (and had earlier moved for directed verdict on future medical expenses); the district court denied the Rule 59 motion. Costa appealed; Higgs cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to instruct on the collateral source rule (not reached by the appellate court).
- The Eleventh Circuit held the exclusion of prior-fall evidence was an abuse of discretion and reversed and remanded for a new trial; Judge Dubina concurred, adding that the verdict was excessive given scant damages proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Higgs’s prior falls (Rule 403) | Prior falls are prejudicial and should be excluded; probative value is low | Prior falls are highly probative of alternative causation, comparative fault, and damages; exclusion prevented fair defense | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion—probative value outweighed prejudice; new trial ordered |
| Preclusion of rebuttal to counsel’s closing statements that Higgs had never fallen before | Counsel’s statements were fair advocacy; exclusion still proper to avoid prejudice | Exclusion deprived Costa of ability to rebut false impression and was substantially prejudicial | Reversed: closing argument compounded error because Costa could not rebut the “never fallen” assertions |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support excessive verdict/damages | Higgs presented substantial evidence of surgery, pain, therapy, scarring, limitations, and risk of future treatment | Costa argued damages evidence was scant and verdict was excessive relative to out-of-pocket expenses | Court did not decide this as primary ground but concurrence found the verdict excessive and would reverse on that basis as well |
| Collateral source instruction (Higgs cross-appeal) | Failure to instruct deprived jury of rule application | District court correctly declined instruction | Not reached due to disposition on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for motion for new trial)
- Middlebrooks v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 256 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir.) (motions for new trial review principles)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for motions in limine)
- United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627 (11th Cir. 1983) (Rule 403 exclusion is extraordinary and should be used sparingly)
- United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) (favor admissibility; maximize probative value and minimize prejudice)
- United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (narrow circumscription of Rule 403 exclusion discretion)
- Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 769 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2014) (importance of defendant’s ability to present alternate causes in negligence cases)