Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict awarding Jean D. Reichenbach $25,000 for injuries sustained in a collision between two boats. The court held that the trial judge did not commit harmful error by excluding evidence of a trial-time Mary Carter settlement between Reichenbach and a codefendant or by limiting cross-examination concerning the settlement. The opinion recognizes that settlement evidence may be relevant to witness bias but emphasizes the trial court’s discretion in balancing impeachment needs against the policy favoring settlements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to inform the jury of a trial-time settlement between Reichenbach and codefendant Woodcock and his insurer.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow cross-examination of Reichenbach concerning the settlement for impeachment.
- Whether federal maritime law, rather than Florida law, governed the admissibility of settlement evidence in the maritime action.
Holdings
- The admission or exclusion of settlement evidence offered for impeachment is governed by federal law in this maritime case, and Federal Rule of Evidence 408 recognizes that compromise evidence may be admissible for purposes such as showing bias or prejudice even though it is inadmissible to prove liability.
- The trial court must balance the policy of encouraging settlements against the need to evaluate witness credibility, and the choice whether to permit or limit cross-examination concerning a settlement is initially committed to the trial judge's discretion.
- The district court did not commit harmful or manifestly erroneous abuse of discretion by excluding evidence of the trial-time settlement or by refusing cross-examination of Reichenbach concerning it; the judgment was therefore affirmed.
Key quotations
“Rule 408 of the new Federal Rules of Evidence specifically states that while evidence of a compromise is not admissible to prove liability, 'this rule does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness . . ..'” (¶ 10)
“In deciding whether to permit or limit cross-examination of a party, here Ms. Reichenbach, concerning a settlement with a codefendant, the trial court must balance the policy of encouraging settlements with the need for evaluating the credibility of the witnesses.” (¶ 12)
“But we emphasize that this affirmance is not to be considered an approval for the future of the trial court's approach.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Reichenbach was injured when the small boat in which she was riding collided with a Seawind operated by Michael Bark on Florida's Intracoastal Waterway. The principal factual dispute concerned the vessels' positions at the time of impact. During the trial, Reichenbach reached a settlement with codefendant Woodcock and his insurer, under which the insurer could be liable for up to $3,000 of any verdict exceeding $25,000 if the excess could not be collected from Bark. The district court excluded evidence of the settlement and the jury awarded Reichenbach $25,000, finding Bark's negligence proximately caused the collision.
Procedural history
Reichenbach sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for injuries arising from a collision between two small boats. The case was tried to a jury under stipulated comparative-negligence principles, and the jury awarded Reichenbach $25,000 against Bark after Woodcock was voluntarily dismissed following a settlement with Reichenbach. The district court excluded evidence of the settlement and refused to permit cross-examination concerning it. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.