Mejias-Aguayo v. Doreste-Rodriguez
863 F.3d 50
1st Cir.2017Background
- Pedestrian José Mejías sued driver Juan Doreste and Doreste’s insurer after being struck by Doreste’s vehicle while crossing a two-way street near a bank in Isabela, Puerto Rico (not at a marked crosswalk).
- Mejías testified he was near the sidewalk when struck; a witness said Mejías’ body flew ~2 feet and landed several feet from Doreste’s bumper; insurer photographs showed damage to the passenger-side front bumper.
- Doreste testified the collision occurred nearer the road’s center, that an oncoming SUV initially obscured Mejías, and that he braked but could not avoid the pedestrian; he also claimed the passenger-side damage predated the accident.
- A jury found for the defendants, concluding Mejías failed to prove Doreste’s negligence and proximate causation; the district court denied Mejías’s motion for a new trial.
- Mejías appealed, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, defense counsel made improper closing remarks, and the court gave incomplete jury instructions regarding drivers’ duties to pedestrians.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verdict against the weight of the evidence | Mejías: Doreste’s own testimony and photos show Mejías was near the sidewalk and passenger-side damage proves Doreste could have avoided the accident; jury disregarded uncontroverted evidence | Doreste: Evidence supported that Mejías appeared suddenly, Doreste braked, was not distracted, and the passenger-side damage was unrelated | Court: No abuse of discretion; appellate review defers to jury credibility findings and district court weighing in light most favorable to verdict |
| Improper closing statements by defense counsel | Mejías: Counsel’s characterization of the event as an “accident” and comments about insurance improperly suggested no liability and appealed to jurors’ sympathy | Defendants: Comments were not materially prejudicial; judge promptly gave curative instructions that arguments are not evidence and insurance shouldn’t be considered | Court: Remarks harmless given totality (nature, frequency, relevance, curative instructions, verdict); no prejudice shown |
| Jury instructions on drivers’ duty to pedestrians | Mejías: Court should have read statutory provisions verbatim (including yield/stop obligations) because omitted language was legally required and material | Defendants: Instructions as given adequately conveyed the driver’s duty to regulate speed and take precautions; no requirement to use exact statutory wording | Court: No reversible error—requested language was substantially incorporated; plaintiff failed to show any impact on his substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones ex rel. U.S. v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 780 F.3d 479 (1st Cir.) (standard for new trial when verdict against weight of evidence)
- Poy v. Boutselis, 352 F.3d 479 (1st Cir.) (appellate review takes facts in light most hospitable to jury verdict)
- Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 597 F.3d 474 (1st Cir.) (framework for assessing prejudicial closing remarks)
- Osorio v. One World Techs., Inc., 659 F.3d 81 (1st Cir.) (prejudice requirement for reversal based on counsel remarks)
- Cigna Ins. Co. v. Oy Saunatec, Ltd., 241 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (test for refusing requested jury instruction)
- White v. N.H. Dep't of Corr., 221 F.3d 254 (1st Cir.) (no need to use exact wording so long as legal principle is correctly stated)