*1 subject respon- dence on the same it is question. evidence in
sive to the See Vine Corp. City
Street (Iowa 1974); see also E. (3rd
Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 67§ 1984). The
ed. Bank’s introduction of evi- may
dence of the unrelated law suit
suggested plaintiff engaged in fil-
ing frivolous lawsuits or that he either was stamps,
not the owner of the that he did valuable, they
not feel were or both. The
plaintiffs evidence of the of settle- amount preserved
ment and that he had claim his stamps responded
for loss of the to this
suggestion.
The circumstances of this case illustrates
the risks involved when a offers evi- questionable relevancy
dence of and which unfairly prejudicial may confuse sepa-
the issues. Once the evidence of the
rate offered lawsuit the defendant was
received, the court could allow the response
to introduce additional
under the admissibility curative rule. Disposition.
V. granting
The trial court did err in
judgment for the Bank on Lala’s claim for
punitive damages. Nor did the court err
denying motion Bank’s
Lala’s claim for compensatory damages.
AFFIRMED. SHAWHAN, Shawhan,
L. Dale Delores A.
and L. Dale Shawhan as Guardian and Kimberly Kay Conservator of Sha
whan, Appellants, COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee.
POLK
No. 86-963.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March 1988.
Rehearing April Denied 1988. *2 damages earnings
her claim of for loss of earning capacity. parents sought or damages providing for the cost of for her support and maintenance. plaintiffs’ objection Over the court excerpts into from two admitted evidence concerning Kimberly’s past use depositions “acid,” “speed.” marijuana, of and no had There was evidence drugs any proximate to used these at time drug past her accident or that her use the accident. The any way contributed to use was offered evidence Langdon and Ross A. Walters Richard G. bearing Kimberly’s life defendant as Herrick, Langdon Langdon, Des & by plaintiffs’ expectancy, a matter raised Moines, appellants. for objected claims for Plaintiffs Jesse, Norman G. W. Hibbard and David evidence, raising the issues of whether Attys., appellee. Asst. Co. 401, 402, relevant, see Iowa R.Evid. it was probative if value was so whether its outweighed by potential prej for unfair allowed, R.Evid. 403. We udice see Iowa SCHULTZ, Justice. the trial court abused must decide whether admissibility of appeal This involves the this evidence its discretion past showing accident victim’s evidence an err, rights and, substantial if it did whether illegal drugs. Kay Sha- use of affected, see Iowa plaintiffs were Delores parents her L. Dale and whan and R.Evid. County for A. Shawhan sued Polk arising by Kimberly injuries from suffered “any it has is relevant when Evidence alleged Plaintiffs in a one-vehicleaccident. any fact tendency to make the existence negligent in the con- that defendant was determination consequence to the that is of of the rural road struction and maintenance proba- probable more or less action At trial the the accident occurred. where the evidence.” it without than would be ble Kimberly’s past court admitted evidence of However, relevant even R.Evid. 401. illegal drug While believe the use. we “if its not admissible evidence excluded, the should have been outweighed by the substantially value affirmatively record demonstrates prejudice.” Iowa danger of unfair the outcome of the evidence did not affect are relevancy prejudice 403. Issues rights of the trial. Because to the discretion normally left matters by the court’s not affected were court; trial court reverse the we ruling, affirm. we of that find a clear abuse we Roth, N.W.2d 403 State v. discretion. age Kimberly, then January 1980 1987). (Iowa 765 La- at a local tavern. became intoxicated ter, drove an leaving the tavern she after concern urges that evidence Defendant em- road and into an automobile off the past drug use is admissible ing she As a result of the accident bankment. a general rule that evidence under severe, disabling permanent, and suffered is rele sobriety intemperance plaintiff’s that it damage. physician Century testified brain expectancy. issues of vant to ” for her to ever impossible would be almost Owens, 400 F.2d 1 Shows “2 supervision. without independently live Cir.1968); Moines (8th Iowa-Des cf. Co., Trucking v. Schwerman Nat’l. Bank perma- for her Kimberly sought (Iowa Ehlinger 198, N.W.2d pain and suffer- disability, nent continued 1976). State, ing, expenses. She withdrew and future
However, we serious doubts use whether does not our inquiry. end Not all Kimberly’s past use evidentiary require errors reversal of the any issue, would be relevant to material judgment. trial court Iowa Rule of Evi especially 103(a) since there was foundational “[ejrror dence states not be proof use that adolescent lessens life predicated upon ruling which admits or present expectancy. Given condition excludes evidence unless a substantial supervision highly need for it is unlike- right of affected.” While a *3 ly drugs that she able to will ever be use in presumption of prejudice arises when the the future. trial court has received inadmissible evi proper objection, dence over that presump Despite our concerns with the trial tion will not the suffice record demon court’s resolution of this matter we need strates a lack prejudice. See Beeck v. not decide evidence whether the was rele- Aquaslide Dive Corp., 149, ‘n’ 350 N.W.2d vant. even if We hold that the evidence (Iowa 1984); 170 Corp. St. City Vine v. was relevant the trial court abused its dis- 860, (Iowa N.W.2d 220 863 probative cretion in concluding val- 1974). addition, In we must construe our outweighed ue of the danger evidence the rules of “to evidence secure fairness in prejudice. unfair See R.Evid. 403. administration, unjustifiable elimination of challenged The Kimberly evidence was that expense delay, promotion and and marijuana used to five four times a week growth development of the law of evi occasionally used “acid” and dence to the end that the truth “speed.” Assuming this that evidence was relevant, proceedings justly ascertained and in deter some sense we conclude that mined.” Iowa 102. Consequently, negligible. its value There this court justice should reverse when showing was no whatsoever that her use of by allowing would not be illegal served the trial drugs any had relation to the car judgment court accident, to stand. no there was evidence that use, adolescent which has mind, principles With these in we con- discontinued, since been will any sig- evidentiary clude that the error does not nificant effect on her life expectancy. require reversal, because it did not affect a In probative value, contrast to the lack right plaintiffs. potential the this causing evidence has for Iowa R.Evid. Evidence of Kimber- high. unfair prejudice ly’s previous See Harless v. was offered use on the Div., Boyle-Midway Prod., expectancy, Am. Home 594 issue of a matter relevant 1051, (5th Cir.1979) F.2d damages. However, 1058 to (testimony the issue of concerning marijuana jury isolated “pre by special use is found verdict that defend- cisely type highly prejudicial county negligent ant evi was not and there dence excluded.”); that should be was United substantial evidence the record to 331, Ong, (2d support addition, States v. 541 F.2d finding. 339-40 jury Cir.1976), denied, 1075, 429 comparative cert. U.S. found that under common law 814, (1977)(“there S.Ct. negligence ninety percent L.Ed.2d was are at subjects few potentially more inflammatory shop fault and the which had dram sold her than liquor narcotics and thus such percent evidence was ten at fault. Because usually should shop be excluded a non-narcot dram was not a to this trial”). ics action, with Confronted this issue of was irrele- prior drug danger use there is serious vant. Because defendant was not liable at jury that a plaintiffs admitting would conclude that all any to error evi- was a person” “bad and thus less entitled dence on the issue was incidental. to recover We hold that the The does not trial court’s error merit rever- court abused its discretion in sal.
highly prejudicial evidence. Our conclusion that reversible error
Our supported by past conclusion the trial court exists in this case improperly previously allowed evidence decisions. held that an We have
8H ruling on evidence offered improper commenced. This action is not a model of prove damages expeditiousness. is not error reversible Because the county was party, finds in of the defendant on changed favor a venue was to Linn Coun- liability. George, ty. parties, witnesses, See Galbraith counsel and the required court were N.W.2d Christian to travel 150 miles or Kramer, 978-79, purpose 257 Iowa 135 more for the son of trial. Frankly, we (1965). why We have also held do not know the trial was not held in special interrogatory adjoining county. that an answer to a an This has been an finding contributory expensive complicated free from proceeding. arising negligence obviates error from ad The error in this case did not affect the mitting bearing on the county determination that the neg- Bakers, Thus, negligence. ligent. Oakes v. Peter Pan our affirmance of the trial Inc., 447, 452, 258 Iowa 138 N.W.2d court’s is consistent with sub- (1965). 96-97 justice. stantial *4 AFFIRMED. argue
Plaintiffs of prior drug use inflammatory was so that it
prejudiced jury determining in the all is All Justices except concur sues, including whether the defendant was McGIVERIN, C.J., who concurs negligent. proof, they point As out that LAVORATO, CARTER, specially, and jury special stating JJ., the returned verdicts ANDREASEN, dis- who SNELL, and Kimberly parents that and her had sus sent. whatsoever, damages despite tained no un- McGIVERIN, (concurring Chief Justice contrary. controverted to the result). in This misleading. contention is An exami the nation of instructions reveals that the I would affirm the of the dis- “If, jury was instructed as follows: under trict court in of favor defendant Polk Coun- Instructions, you plaintiff these find Kim ty for majority reasons different from the berly Kay recover, Shawhan entitled to it opinion. your duty
will be to fix the fair and reason fighting question The is whether the trial damage....” able amount similar in court abused its discretion into given parent’s instruction was on each jury, plaintiffs’ the record the over before damages. claim for From these instruc relevancy by objection, evidence defendant jury tions the could infer that they were past marijuana use in the only damages to award if the use of four to five times each week and against were entitled to recover the defend amphetamines occasion- L.S.D. and ant. Therefore the determination of zero ally. There was contention damages significance urged by lacks the use caused the accident. plaintiffs. find in We no merit the claim Kimberly age 18 at the time of the was jury that the denial of indicates apparently accident and was a abuser. prejudice. simply We cannot assume that sought damages permanent for the failed to the court’s instruc follow disability, expenses future and continued negligence preju tions on because it was suffering inju- accident pain and from her by improper diced the evidence. ries. summary, we the conclude that considera- expectancy court’s error did not affect a substantial Her life is a valid right plaintiffs. holding assessing duration and amount Our is con- tion the damages. expert An purposes sistent with the stated of Iowa of claimed future mortality long Rule of Evidence 102. This was a used the standard table, (1987), to at 1200 extended trial of over two weeks. The see III Iowa Code con- years expectancy without accident occurred six before the date estimate her life lessening span due sidering any of the verdict and the verdict was reached of her her. years more than five after the action other to to factors relevant person's sobriety or intem Evidence of a use. Corp. See St. Vine perance expect City on his her life does bear (Iowa 1974) Owens, (“Prejudice presumed ancy. Century “21" Shows v. appears when error the unless (8th Cir.1968); contrary is 400 F.2d Iowa- cf. established.”). affirmatively I think the Des Moines Nat’l Bank v. Schwerman jury’s answers to the in the special issues Co., Trucking 288 N.W.2d reasonably form can interpreted verdict State, Ehlinger 237 N.W.2d finding as a suffered no (Iowa 1976). case, In the Owens evi finding Such a is so overwhelm- dence of past use intoxicants was admit against ingly weight of the evidence possible ted such because of effect I can reach but one conclusion: this personal have on in intoxicants would unfairly prejudicial devastating evi- jury plaintiff’s longevity. 400 at 610. F.2d jury’s dence affected not determi- present issue boils down a discre- to nation but also its determina- tionary judgment call court the trial liability. I Consequently, tion of think the considering plaintiffs relevancy ob- right error did affect a jection under Iowa Rule of 403 as Evidence plaintiffs. See to whether the value of the evi- There comes a time when error a trial substantially outweighed by dence is patently prejudicial is so unfair that we danger prejudice plaintiffs. of unfair attempt should not away to rationalize it The trial court exercised its discretion properly brought once it is to our attention. allowed the evidence. such This is a case. ruling, In order to reverse that we must *5 implied by One such rationalization say clearly the trial court abused its discre majority particularly disturbing because Clark, tion. Gail v. dangerous precedent. suggests it a I (Iowa 1987). find only We such an abuse litigant agree a entitled one when the trial court exercises its discretion however, happens, fair trial. Until that grounds on or for reasons clearly unten expense expended of time amount clearly able or to an extent unreasonable. justify not putting should case to rest. Dep’t. Transp., Frank Iowa 386 N.W. I reverse for a would and remand new (Iowa 1986). 2d trial. When a seeks which expectancy relevant, her life I would CARTER, SNELL ANDREASEN, placed conclude she has in issue factors JJ., join this dissent. sobriety such as her intemperance as
they may expectancy. bear on life
jury is entitled to this information when
asked to her claim assess for future dam- ages. Expert testimony as to the effect ALEXANDER, et J. Robert plaintiff’s abuse on expectancy al., Appellants, should necessary not be as a foundation before the could assess this evidence. BOARD APPEAL f/k/a EMPLOYMENT ruling discretionary trial court’s Department Service of Job clearly clearly untenable or unreason- Appellees. Company, Hubinger able. 86-1555. No. reasons, For the I above concur Iowa. Supreme Court result that the court’s should 16, 1988. March affirmed. 6, 1988. Rehearing May Denied
LAVORATO, (dissenting). Justice 11, 1988. As May Corrected I am not convinced this record affirma-
tively presumption preju- overcomes the triggered by
dice the inadmissible evidence