Two Rivers Bank & Trust v. Vanya Atanasova
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15198
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- This diversity action arises from a nighttime Iowa highway collision where Holtkamp’s car rear-ended a semi driven by Atanasova, killing Davis and injuring K.H. and Holtkamp.
- A jury found 90% fault to Atanasova and 10% to Holtkamp, with total damages exceeding $3.6 million, against Atanasova and the truck’s dispatcher Venture One, Inc.
- The district court denied post-trial motions; Atanasova and Venture One appeal challenging jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, fault apportionment, and damages awards.
- Evidence showed Atanasova’s truck was on the shoulder and merged onto the highway; issues existed regarding lighting, speed, lookout, and whether Holtkamp could see the truck in time.
- Plaintiffs presented expert and lay testimony on speed differential, visibility, and causation; defense urged Holtkamp’s fault and limited mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instructions on lookout and moving a vehicle were proper | Holtkamp | Atanasova/Venture One | Instruction(s) upheld; evidence supported lookout and safe-merger specifications |
| Whether exclusion of Holtkamp's drug use and citation evidence was proper | Holtkamp | Atanasova/Venture One | Exclusions upheld; probative value did not outweigh prejudice; redaction allowed |
| Whether the jury’s apportionment of fault was against the weight of the evidence | Holtkamp/Two Rivers Bank | Atanasova/Venture One | No; record supported 90/10 split; district court did not err in denying new trial |
| Whether Finley’s loss-of-consortium claim was properly submitted and supported | Finley | Atanasova/Venture One | Affirmed; substantial evidence supported loss-of-consortium for sixteen years while minor |
Key Cases Cited
- Coker v. Abell-Howe Co., 491 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1992) (instructions must reflect substantial evidence)
- Nichols v. Schweitzer, 472 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 1991) (substantial evidence standard; spec. evidence review)
- McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for jury instructions)
- Bennett v. Hidden Valley Golf & Ski, Inc., 318 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2003) (evidentiary rulings; federal standard in diversity cases)
- Spencer v. Young, 495 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2007) (evidence admissibility; Rule 403 balancing)
- Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 922 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1990) (relevance and prejudice in evidentiary rulings)
- Gordon v. Carey, 603 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa 1999) (standards for remittitur and excessive damages)
- Kaltenheuser v. Sesker, 121 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 1963) (medical testimony required for future pain only in certain contexts)
- DeBurkarte v. Louvar, 393 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 1986) (future pain evidence admissibility when pain proven)
- Estate of Pearson ex rel. Latta v. Interstate Power & Light Co., 700 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2005) (jury discretion in assessing physical and mental pain)