Steven F. Ludlow
346 P.3d 1
Wyo.2015Background
- Casper, Wyoming, accident on October 28, 2007 involving Ludlow who was intoxicated and Wise as passenger.
- Ludlow admitted heavy drinking; Wise had also consumed alcohol earlier; crash caused vehicle damage.
- Wise sued Ludlow; jury found Ludlow 55% at fault and Wise 45%; Wise damages $15,000 before fault offset.
- Jury awarded Wise net $8,250 after comparative fault reduction; cross-appeal by Ludlow about service of process.
- Service of process: summons served at Ravine Road, Verona, New Jersey on Ludlow’s mother; Ludlow lived elsewhere.
- District court denied Ludlow’s Rule 12(b)(5) dismiss/summary-judgment motion; trial proceeded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions on comparative fault were proper | Wise argues Ludlow admitted fault; no substantial evidence supports Wise fault; no need for comparative fault instruction. | Ludlow contends evidence supports Wise fault and the jury should apportion fault between both. | Yes; instructions on comparative fault appropriate; evidence supported some Wise fault. |
| Whether exclusion of Wise's financial-condition evidence was reversible | Delays in treatment were due to lack of funds; evidence relevant to mitigation and causation. | Financial status testimony would be inflammatory and create Pandora's box; probative value outweighed by prejudice. | Yes; district court did not abuse discretion in excluding such evidence. |
| Whether Dr. Gretchen Brunworth's expert testimony was properly admitted under Daubert | Daubert gatekeeper standard met; differential-diagnosis methodology accepted; testimony relevant to causation. | Challenge to methodology or documentation; reliability not satisfied. | Yes; district court properly admitted Brunworth’s testimony; differential-diagnosis deemed reliable. |
| Whether Wise could impeach Ludlow with Ludlow's Answer to the Complaint | Answer contains admissions undermining Ludlow’s fault; should be admitted for impeachment. | Answer is prejudicial and confusing; privileged communications and probative value limited. | No; district court did not abuse discretion in denying admission of the Answer. |
| Whether service of process established personal jurisdiction over Ludlow | Return of service created prima facie showing; Ludlow failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence. | Ludlow proved Ravine Road address not his usual abode; service invalid. | Yes; service proper; Ludlow failed to show improper service by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundahl v. Gregg, 334 P.3d 558 (Wyo. 2014) (burdens and standards for reviewing jurisdictional facts on Rule 12)
- Rosty v. Skaj, 272 P.3d 947 (Wyo. 2012) (burden shifts to defendant after prima facie service; clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Crotteau v. Irvine, 656 P.2d 1166 (Wyo. 1983) (presumption of validity of substituted service; burden initially on plaintiff)
- PanAmerican Mineral Servs. v. KLS Enviro Resources, Inc., 916 P.2d 986 (Wyo. 1996) (Rule 12(b) vs Rule 12(d) proceedings; burden-shifting guidance for jurisdictional issues)
- Easum v. Miller, 92 P.3d 794 (Wyo. 2004) (Daubert standard; gatekeeping for expert testimony)