339 P.3d 16
Mont.2014Background
- Peterson-Tuell sued First Student for negligence; liability admitted, damages to be determined at trial.
- Trial evidence included Peterson-Tuell’s treatment records and physicians’ opinions linking symptoms to prior trauma and depression.
- First Student argued symptoms were psychosomatic and related to past anxiety/depression, including prior sexual abuse by a family member.
- District Court admitted the medical records and expert testimony; motion in limine was denied on the morning of trial.
- Two jurors challenged for cause (Cline and Lawler) were denied challenges; no demonstration of bias found on appeal.
- After verdict, First Student sought costs; court denied as untimely under § 25-10-501, MCA, with Doyle-based timing issue resolved by Rule 6 amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred admitting prior trauma evidence | Peterson-Tuell argues evidence is unduly prejudicial and not causally connected. | First Student contends evidence is relevant to causation and not merely prejudicial. | Evidence relevant to causation; no abuse of discretion in admission. |
| Whether the district court erred by denying challenges for cause to jurors | Peterson-Tuell asserts bias in two jurors required removal. | First Student contends jurors were not demonstrably biased. | No abuse of discretion; neither juror shown to be biased. |
| Whether the district court erred by denying First Student's bill of costs as untimely | Peterson-Tuell and First Student disagreed on timing; Doyle governs five-day period. | First Student contends timely filing under § 25-10-501, MCA; Rule 6 amendments affect calculation. | District court correct; timing calculated under amended Rule 6; Doyle's rule superseded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seltzer v. Morton, 336 Mont. 225 (Mont. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Lopez v. Josephson, 305 Mont. 446 (Mont. 2001) (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary decisions)
- Kimes v. Herrin, 705 P.2d 108 (Mont. 1985) (requires medical causal connection for alternate-causation evidence)
- Henricksen v. State, 84 P.3d 38 (Mont. 2004) (causal connection needed for alternate-causation testimony)
- Crider, 375 Mont. 187 (Mont. 2014) (motion in limine specificity required to preserve objections)
- Doyle v. Clark, 254 P.3d 570 (Mont. 2011) (five-day period after verdict; business-days vs calendar days rule)
- Newman v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 370 Mont. 133 (Mont. 2013) (changing legal theories on appeal not considered where not preserved)