Michael Ferguson v. National Freight Inc.
692 F. App'x 756
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael S. Ferguson’s tow truck was struck from behind by an NFI tractor‑trailer driven by Manuel Torres; jury awarded Ferguson $300,000.
- Defendants (Torres and NFI) appealed, raising evidentiary rulings and arguing the verdict lacked sufficient evidentiary support; damages are not contested.
- Trooper C.D. Price (first responder) could not attend trial; a redacted deposition was admitted over defendants’ objection, including Price’s testimony that Ferguson’s vehicle was in the right‑hand travel lane before impact.
- Defendants sought to cross‑examine two sisters involved in the accident about lawsuits they filed against Ferguson; the court allowed notice of suits but limited detailed questioning about pleadings.
- District court denied defendants’ renewed Rule 50(b) motion (judgment as a matter of law) and Rule 59 new trial motion; the Fourth Circuit affirms, reviewing evidentiary rulings and post‑verdict motions for abuse of discretion or de novo as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Trooper Price’s deposition testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 701 | Price’s observations were lay perceptions helpful to show vehicle position | Testimony was baseless/speculative lay opinion and improperly admitted under Rule 701 | Admission not an abuse of discretion; testimony was perception‑based, helpful, and non‑technical |
| Scope of cross‑examination about sisters’ lawsuits | Ferguson allowed disclosure that he was named in suits; further detail unnecessary | Defendants needed to probe pleadings’ content and significance | Court properly limited probing; allowing notice of suits and brief attorney explanation was within discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligence and contributory negligence (Rule 50(b)) | Evidence supports jury finding Torres negligent and Ferguson not contributorily negligent | Evidence established Torres was not speeding and Ferguson pulled out in front of Torres; verdict lacks evidentiary basis | De novo review: reasonable minds could differ; denial of JMOL affirmed |
| Motion for new trial (Rule 59) | Evidentiary rulings and trial errors require new trial | No reversible evidentiary error; not exceptional circumstances | Abuse‑of‑discretion standard not met; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Min, 704 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 701 lay‑opinion admission)
- Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing Rule 50 JMOL denial)
- United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2015) (abuse of discretion for evidentiary admissibility)
- United States v. Kiza, 855 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 2017) (district court discretion in controlling cross‑examination)
- Litchford v. Hancock, 352 S.E.2d 335 (Va. 1987) (driver duty to keep proper lookout and avoid collision)
- Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Nance, 221 S.E.2d 132 (Va. 1976) (negligence not presumed from occurrence of accident)
- RGR, LLC v. Settle, 764 S.E.2d 8 (Va. 2014) (appellate standard for contributory negligence conflicts in evidence)
- Meeks v. Hodges, 306 S.E.2d 879 (Va. 1983) (negligence and proximate cause ordinarily for factfinder)
- Gentry v. East West Partners Club Mgmt. Co., 816 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2016) (Rule 59 new trial review standard)
AFFIRMED