Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Brophy ex rel. Brophy

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed an $18,069,257 jury judgment arising from a collision between a vehicle driven by Peter Brophy and a Werner Enterprises semi-truck driven by Cheryl Neal. The court rejected Werner's challenges concerning a statutory presumption under Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-222(c), alleged improper questioning and evidentiary rulings, future-care testimony, and the excessiveness of the verdict. The court also declined to address the Brophys' conditional cross-appeal because it affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. Werner failed to preserve its argument that the statute created a presumption shifting the burden of proof, and the district court did not commit plain error by declining to give such an instruction. The law was not clearly established as requiring a jury instruction on a statutory presumption in these circumstances, and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
2. To establish plain error in a jury instruction, the record must clearly show the alleged error, the error must transgress a clear rule of law, the error must affect a substantial right, and the error must materially prejudice the appellant.
3. Counsel's question to Neal about whether falsifying a driver's log was serious did not violate the pretrial order reflected in the record.
4. Any error in asking Werner's accident-reconstruction expert about Werner's safety record and accident history was harmless because the question caused no prejudice affecting substantial rights.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the life-care planner to testify about Brophy's likely future care needs and associated costs without additional medical testimony on each asserted medical foundation.
6. The verdict was not so excessive or unreasonable as to indicate passion or prejudice, and the jury acted within its discretion in awarding damages for medical expenses, future care, lost income, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and disability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court committed reversible or plain error by failing to instruct the jury that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-222(c) created a presumption that Brophy failed to yield and shifted the burden of proof.
2. Whether counsel violated a pretrial order by asking Neal whether falsifying a driver's log was a serious matter.
3. Whether questioning Werner's accident-reconstruction expert about Werner's safety record and accident history caused prejudicial error.
4. Whether the life-care planner's testimony concerning future medical and attendant-care expenses lacked foundation absent additional medical testimony.
5. Whether the verdict was excessive and resulted from passion or prejudice.
6. Whether the conditional cross-appeal evidentiary issues should be considered after affirmance.

Disposition

affirmed