Linda Hawn v. Cascio Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A McDonald's of Maysville
2019 CA 000672
Ky. Ct. App.Sep 17, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Linda Hawn slipped and fractured her wrist in September 2016 after exiting the McDonald’s of Maysville; she admitted seeing some wet-floor signs on entry but contended the path she took was wet and not adequately warned.
- Employee Crystal Boyd was observed with a mop and mop bucket near the area; parties disputed whether Boyd had mopped the exact area Hawn crossed and whether she cleaned it before or after summoning management.
- Surveillance video (of modest clarity) showed three wet-floor signs; witnesses disputed their placement and meaning.
- At trial the court allowed Boyd to testify about undergoing chemo/radiation (over objection) with a jury admonition limiting use of that testimony to memory/credibility, and had previously granted defendant Cascio’s motion in limine excluding Boyd’s criminal convictions as older than ten years.
- Jury returned verdict for Cascio (11 of 12 jurors finding no liability); post-trial motions (new trial, contact jurors, stay of costs) were denied; Hawn appealed raising evidentiary rulings, juror-contact restrictions, judicial-admission rulings, and costs issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Boyd’s cancer-treatment testimony and the court’s admonition | Testimony improperly bolstered Boyd’s credibility and admonition vouched for witness | Testimony relevant to memory/credibility after impeachment; admonition cured sympathy risk | Admission and admonition reviewed for abuse; any error harmless or not palpable given video and other evidence — no relief granted |
| Exclusion of Boyd’s >10-year-old convictions (motion in limine) | Convictions were probative of credibility and fairness required permitting inquiry after cancer testimony | Convictions were remote; prejudicial; KRE 609(b) requires probative value substantially outweigh prejudice | Trial court considered Miller factors and did not abuse discretion in excluding convictions under KRE 609(b) |
| Denial of request to contact jurors before end of jury term | Plaintiff needed interviews for post-trial motions/appeal; court lost authority after trial completed | Court may limit post-trial contact to protect small local jury pool and avoid tampering/ex parte influence | Court did not abuse discretion in forbidding counsel contact with jurors until jury term expired |
| Treating Jones’ deposition statements as judicial admissions | Three deposition answers were unambiguous admissions (no wet-floor signs, policy violations, post-fall cleaning) | Answers were equivocal or ambiguous and thus not conclusive admissions | Judicial-admission standard requires clear, deliberate, unequivocal statements; court properly declined to treat them as judicial admissions |
| Motion to hold costs in abeyance pending appeal | Requested to suspend bill of costs while appeal/new-trial pending | Costs are allowed to prevailing party; no authority to hold costs in abeyance absent exceptions or supersedeas bond | Trial court did not err denying abeyance; plaintiff offered no supporting authority or inability to pay |
| Directed verdict on medical causation/medical expenses | Trial court should have directed verdict on causation and on reasonableness of medical expenses | Insufficient grounds for directed verdict; jury resolves liability | Issue is moot because jury found no liability; appellate court expresses no opinion on directed verdict merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial court evidentiary rulings)
- Miller ex rel. Monticello Banking Co. v. Marymount Medical Center, 125 S.W.3d 274 (Ky. 2004) (KRE 609(b) balancing and presumption favoring exclusion of convictions older than ten years)
- Benjamin v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2008) (jury admonition is normally presumed to cure evidentiary error)
- Cape Publications, Inc. v. Braden, 39 S.W.3d 823 (Ky. 2001) (distinguishing press requests to contact jurors from parties’ requests)
- Witten v. Pack, 237 S.W.3d 133 (Ky. 2007) (judicial-admission standard: statements must be deliberate, unequivocal, and uncontradicted)
- Davis v. City of Winchester, 206 S.W.3d 917 (Ky. 2006) (motion-in-limine order of record preserves evidentiary issue for appeal)