Harris v. City Cycle Sales, Inc.

1

JEREMY LEON HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CITY CYCLE SALES, INC., Defendant.

No. 21-CV-2264-EFM

United States District Court, D. Kansas

May 26, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant City Cycle Sales, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the alternative, for a New Trial (Doc. 103). After a full trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Jeremy Harris in the amount of $4,481,200 on his negligence and Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”) claims. Defendant asks the Court to set aside this verdict, arguing that (1) there was insufficient evidence as to causation on Plaintiff's negligence and KCPA claims; (2) the KCPA claims were irrevocably abandoned prior to trial; and (3) Plaintiff's expert impermissibly testified on a subject limited by the Court's in limine ruling, which improperly influenced the jury's decision. Because the Court finds that none of these arguments support judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant or a new trial Defendant's Motion is denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The background of this case up to trial is fully summarized in the Court's previous orders. Briefly, Plaintiff was injured during a one-vehicle motorcycle accident in May 2014. Plaintiff filed suit in Kansas state court two years later, alleging that Dean Mizes, Defendant's service manager, was negligent and violated the KCPA during the service of Plaintiff's motorcycle one month before the accident. Before the state court trial, Plaintiff did not ask that the jury be instructed on the KCPA claims. The state court did not instruct the jury on Plaintiff's KCPA theory. The jury returned a verdict finding Plaintiff 100% at fault for the accident. Plaintiff appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions for a new trial. The reversal was premised on a legally erroneous comparative fault instruction. The matter was remanded to the state court, where the parties stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff then filed the case in this Court.

Plaintiff brought both negligence and KCPA claims in this action. Defendant promptly moved to dismiss the KCPA claims, arguing they had been abandoned in the state court trial. After thorough consideration, the Court disagreed and found that no rule of law raised by Defendant prohibited Plaintiff from pursuing the KCPA claims.

The Court held a pre-trial in limine conference. The Court considered, among others, Defendant's motion to exclude any mention at trial of warranty claims made to Harley-Davidson about a pinched wire in the wiring harness of other V-Rod motorcycles. Plaintiff conceded that he would not offer them into evidence at trial but insisted that his expert relied on the warranty claims and should be able to mention them in testifying. The Court disagreed and ruled that these warranty claims would not be discussed at trial.

In conjunction with the in limine conference, the Court also held a Daubert hearing on Plaintiff's expert, Wayne McCracken. Defendant asked the Court to exclude McCracken from testifying at all. Specifically, on the question of causation-that is, whether the pinched wire found in the wiring harness caused the accident-Defendant asked the Court to exclude McCracken's opinion that the pinched wire was present at the time Mizes serviced the motorcycle. Defendant reasoned that McCracken had no way of knowing the pinched wire was present during the service and therefore it was unsupported speculation for him to conclude it caused the accident. The Court agreed that McCracken could not testify that the pinched wire existed at the time of Defendant's service without any evidentiary basis. But the Court did not exclude McCracken's opinion in its entirety, instead permitting him to opine on the connection between the pinched wire found after the accident and the ABS issues that, according to him, led to wheel lockup and the accident.

At trial, Wayne McCracken testified at length. When asked about the cause of Plaintiff's accident, McCracken responded that “[t]he pinched wire caused the ABS not to function. When the ABS did not function, the wheel locked up and Mr. Harris crashed. It's that simple.” He denied that the pinched wire was instead caused by the accident, a possibility Defendant raised several times throughout trial. McCracken's testimony twice veered into attempting to discuss the warranty claims-a subject specifically limited by the Court's in limine ruling. He ultimately stated that “Harley-Davison knew about this problem,” which the Court viewed as a clear reference to the warranty claims. Defense counsel asked the Court to strike the entirety of McCracken's testimony based on this statement. The Court did not do so, and instead struck the offending statement and informed the jury to disregard that portion of McCracken's testimony. The Court also admonished McCracken outside of the presence of the jury, after which his testimony ceased to stray into improper topics.

The jury heard other evidence about the pinched wire and Plaintiff's ABS issues prior to the accident. From Zach Reeves-a repair specialist at Historic Harley-Davidson who examined and repaired Plaintiff's bike after the accident-the jury heard testimony that once the pinched wire in the wiring harness was resolved, the motorcycle's onboard computer showed no more trouble codes. Plaintiff himself testified about the ABS issues he was experiencing since his purchase of the motorcycle. He expressed that was the primary reason he brought his motorcycle to Defendant's shop. And the jury saw the work order Defendant used in servicing Plaintiff's motorcycle, which had a notation that the ABS light was on when the motorcycle was presented. The jury also heard from Dean Mizes, who testified that the motorcycle showed no trouble codes and that the ABS performed as intended during a test ride.

After Plaintiff rested his case, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law. This motion was based solely on its contention that Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof on causation. That is, there was not sufficient evidence that the pinched wire that caused the accident was present at the time Defendant serviced the motorcycle. The Court denied Defendant's motion, noting that while there was no direct evidence the pinched wire was present at the time of Defendant's service, the jury could reasonably find that the pinched wire was present at that time based on circumstantial evidence.

The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. On the negligence claim, the jury found Defendant 75% at fault and Plaintiff 25% at fault. The verdict was split on Plaintiff's KCPA deceptive act and practices claims, with the jury finding Plaintiff had proved his case on two out of four of his theories. The jury found that Defendant's KCPA violations caused Plaintiff's damages, which the jury found to be $4,481,200.

Within the time frame provided by Rule 50(b), Defendant renewed its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. As alternative relief, Defendant requests a new trial.

II. Legal Standard

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1), the Court may issue a judgment as a matter of law when “a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Thus, “[j]udgment as a matter of law is only appropriate if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences” that may support the opposing party's position.^[1] “A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.”^[2] Rule 50(b) allows the party that made a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law during the trial to “file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law” after the trial and include an alternate motion for a new trial under Rule 59.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) allows the court to grant a new trial on a motion “after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal courts.” The decision to grant a motion for new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.^[3] Such a motion is “not regarded with favor and should only be granted with great caution.”^[4] The party seeking to set aside a jury verdict must demonstrate trial errors constituting prejudicial error or demonstrate that the verdict is not based on substantial evidence.^[5] In making that determination, the Court's “inquiry focuses on whether the verdict is clearly, decidedly or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.”^[6] The Court will “ignore errors that do not affect the essential fairness of the trial.”^[7]

III. Analysis

A. Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

The Court considers first Defendant's renewed request for judgment as a matter of law. Defendant offers two potential grounds for judgment as a matter of law in its favor. First, Defendant argues, as it did in its initial motion at the close of Plaintiff's case, that there was insufficient evidence of causation for the jury to reasonably find in Plaintiff's favor. Second, Defendant reiterates an argument it made in its motion to dismiss-that the KCPA claims were abandoned in the prior state court action and should not have been permitted in this action.

1. Causation Evidence as to Negligence and KCPA claims

The crux of Defendant's argument is that the jury, to find in favor of Plaintiff on causation, could only rely on bare speculation that the pinched wire was present during Defendant's service. Causation is obviously a required element for both negligence and KCPA c...