Tanya L. Lacy and Michael Lacy, Her Husband, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. Csx Transportation, Inc., Defendant… (West Virginia 1999)

Summary

The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the circuit court improperly allowed CSX to argue the speculative post-judgment consequences of joint and several liability and improperly excluded a material portion of a railroad accident diagram. The court also held that the diagram qualified for admission under the business-records exception because the rule does not require the record preparer personally to have observed the recorded event, and circumstantial evidence established a sufficient foundation. Justice Workman, dissenting and joined by Justice Maynard, would have affirmed because the evidentiary ruling was discretionary and any error in the closing argument was harmless.

Holding

Preservation of the challenge to CSX's closing argument. A party that has objected to an in limine ruling permitting a line of closing argument need not make a second contemporaneous objection when the later argument reasonably falls within the scope of that ruling.

Argument concerning joint and several liability. In a civil trial, it is generally an abuse of discretion for a court to instruct the jury or permit counsel to argue about the operation of joint and several liability when the purpose is to communicate the potential post-judgment effect of the jury's allocation of fault. The circuit court abused its discretion by allowing CSX to argue that any finding of fault would make CSX effectively responsible for the entire judgment, and the error was not harmless.

Admission of the accident diagram under the business-records exception. The business-records exception does not require the preparer of a record to have personal knowledge of every matter recorded. The knowledge requirement may be satisfied by the preparer's knowledge, information transmitted by a knowledgeable person acting in a regularly conducted activity, or proof that the activity regularly relies on communications from knowledgeable persons. The accident diagram was sufficiently supported by circumstantial evidence and should have been admitted in its entirety.

Tanya L. Lacy and Michael Lacy, Her Husband, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. Csx Transportation, Inc., Defendant…

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by