Ronald Arnold v. Sam's Club
662 F. App'x 506
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Ronald S. Arnold (pro se) sued Sam’s Club for negligence after a slip-and-fall; the case proceeded to jury trial and resulted in a verdict for Sam’s Club.
- Arnold appealed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, voir dire statements, jury instructions, and discovery rulings concerning employee manuals and other incident reports.
- The district court excluded various items Arnold sought to admit for lack of authentication or relevance, and excluded other slip-and-fall reports as unauthenticated and not shown to be substantially similar.
- The district court intervened during witness examination to clarify questions and prevent repetitive testimony; it also admitted a customer incident report signed by Arnold after Arnold indicated no objection.
- Arnold argued the court improperly removed punitive damages and erred in voir dire by identifying his race; the court found he sought only compensatory damages and that the voir dire conduct was within discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of various documents | Arnold argued the documents were relevant and should be admitted | Sam’s Club argued documents were unauthenticated or irrelevant | Exclusion affirmed: documents were unauthenticated or irrelevant under Rules 401, 901 |
| Use of other Sam’s Club incident reports | Arnold sought admission to prove negligence | Sam’s Club disputed authenticity and similarity | Exclusion affirmed: unauthenticated and not shown substantially similar (Daniel) |
| District judge’s participation in witness questioning | Arnold contended judge’s participation was improper | Sam’s Club defended as clarifying and preventing repetition | Affirmed: judge may participate to clarify and control testimony (Swinton) |
| Discovery re: Alaska employee manual | Arnold sought order to compel production | Sam’s Club said it produced all written maintenance policies | Denial affirmed: court credited Sam’s Club’s representation (Hallett) |
| Admission of customer incident report signed by Arnold | Arnold later challenged its admission | Sam’s Club noted Arnold had stipulated to admission | Affirmed: party who stipulated cannot later object (Gwaltney) |
| Voir dire reference to plaintiff's race | Arnold argued it was improper and prejudicial | Sam’s Club: judge has broad discretion in voir dire | Affirmed: within judge’s discretion to inquire about fairness (Paine) |
| Supplemental jury instructions | Arnold argued instructions were erroneous | Sam’s Club argued instructions correctly stated law | Affirmed: instructions not plainly erroneous (C.B.) |
Key Cases Cited
- McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Daniel v. Coleman Co. Inc., 599 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (other-accident evidence requires substantial similarity)
- Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court may participate in witness examination to clarify and prevent repetition)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for review of discovery rulings)
- United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1986) (a party who stipulates to admission cannot later challenge it)
- Paine v. City of Lompoc, 160 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 1998) (broad discretion in conducting voir dire)
- C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review for unobjected-to jury instructions)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief need not be considered)