Lloyd Kingery, Appellant v. Roscoe Barrett, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Kingery's motion for a new trial after a jury found that Barrett's admitted negligence was not a legal cause of Kingery's injuries. The court held that Kingery waived his argument that Barrett was liable as a matter of law, identified no binding admission inconsistent with the verdict, and failed to show plain error, an abuse of discretion, or a verdict that was plainly unreasonable and unjust. The court also held that the challenged instruction was harmless, the exclusion of the insurance claim file was permissible, and the bias and interjection arguments were waived. No separate opinions were filed.