Seymour v. Con Freightways ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 23, 2001
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 00-60649
Summary Calendar
ARNOLD SEYMOUR,
Planitiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE;
CHESTER BRADFORD, JR.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:97-CV-524-WS
August 23, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arnold Seymour appeals a jury verdict in favor of defendants-
appellees, Consolidated Freightways Corporation and Chester
Bradford on a negligence claim arising from a traffic accident. We
affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During the early morning hours of August 2, 1995, in
Mississippi, Arnold Seymour (hereafter “Seymour”)drove a tractor-
trailer rig loaded with a cargo container south on Interstate 55
until he heard two popping noises. Seymour then stopped on the
interstate’s shoulder and examined the vehicle. Upon discovering
two blown out tires, Seymour began to walk to a truck stop at a
nearby exit. Although the truck stop’s tire man was gone for the
night, a gentleman who frequented the truck stop, Tom Arnold,
offered to fix the tires and drove Seymour back to his disabled rig
on the interstate.
Intending to ease the rig back to the truck stop, Seymour
turned on his flashers and proceeded south on the interstate
between five and twenty-five miles per hour, straddling the white
fog line with part of his truck on the shoulder and part of it in
the right hand lane of travel. Following behind in his own pickup
truck, Tom Arnold assumed the role of escort.1
Although several vehicles passed Seymour and Tom Arnold
without incident, after driving about a mile and a half, a tractor-
trailer rig driven by Chester Bradford and pulling two pup trailers
began to close in on Tom Arnold and Seymour. Fearing that he would
be crushed between the rigs of Seymour and Bradford, suddenly Tom
Arnold veered to the right, off the roadway, and the right side of
1
Conflicting testimony was presented at trial regarding whether
the flashers on Tom Arnold’s pickup truck were operating properly.
2
the second pup trailer being pulled by Bradford crashed into the
left rear corner of the cargo container trailer being pulled by
Seymour. Pieces of Bradford’s second pup trailer and its contents
were strewn along the highway but neither Seymour nor Bradford
required immediate medical attention.
Seymour argues on appeal that 1) the trial court erred in
admitting into evidence the defendant’s exhibit D-9, a letter from
the Louisiana Department of Labor accusing Seymour of unemployment
compensation fraud, 2) the jury erred when it failed to find that
Bradford was negligent, and 3) that Bradford’s negligence was the
proximate cause of Seymour’s injuries.
EVIDENTIARY RULING
Seymour asserts that the trial court erred in admitting into
evidence a letter from the Louisiana Department of Labor accusing
Seymour of unemployment compensation fraud and that the letter
should not have been admitted because 1) it was not listed in the
Pre-Trial Order, 2) it was not properly authenticated pursuant to
FED. R. EVID. 902, 3) it was hearsay, and 4) it violated FED. R. EVID.
608(b) and 403. We review the admission of evidence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Hearod, 499 F.2d 1003, 1004 (5th Cir.
1974)(citations omitted). However, because the objection at trial
to the admission of the letter was couched only in terms of
improper predicate, plain error analysis applies. Douglas v.
United Svcs. Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir. 1996).
3
“[T]he admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of
the district court. Absent proof of abuse an appellate court will
not disturb a district court's evidentiary rulings.” Jon-T
Chemicals, Inc. v. Freeport Chemical Co., 704 F.2d 1412, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). After reviewing the record, we
find no error, plain or otherwise in the district court’s admission
of the letter into evidence.
JURY FINDINGS
Seymour complains that the evidence sufficiently proves that
Bradford was negligent and that the jury erred when it failed to
find that Bradford was negligent. We review a jury’s verdict under
the sufficiency of the evidence standard. See Granberry v. O’Barr,
866 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1988). Under this standard, “[t]he
verdict must be upheld unless the facts and inferences point so
strongly and so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that
reasonable men could not arrive at any verdict to the contrary.”
Id. (quoting Western Co. of North America v. United States, 699
F.2d 264, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 892, 104 S.Ct.
237, 78 L.Ed.2d 228 (1983)). In the instant case, we find the
evidence presented in the record to be of sufficient quality and
weight for reasonable and fair minded jurors exercising impartial
judgment to reach a verdict in favor of the defendants-appellees.
The final issue presented on appeal is whether Bradford’s
negligence was a proximate cause of any injuries to Seymour.
4
Although proximate cause is an element of a claim for negligence,
the jury verdict did not contain a finding of negligence.
Therefore, we need not address proximate cause on this appeal.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
5