Estate of Man Involved in Fatal Motorcycle Accident Not Entitled to New Trial
(February 2010) By Tamiya N. Wilkes, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Frieda L. Sergent, et al. v. Anne Arundel County,
Case No.: PWG-08-1286 (February 3, 2010)
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/SergentM&O020310.pdf
Gene Sergent ("Sergent") and Darrell Blount ("Blount") were
involved in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, Sergent, who
died as a result of this accident, was twenty years old and held a Virginia
motorcycle learner's permit. The motorcycle learner's permit required Sergent to
operate a motorcycle only while under the direct supervision of an adult who is
licensed to operate a motorcycle. Blount, a firefighter, was operating an
ambulance for Defendant Anne Arundel County ("the County").
Sergent's Estate ("the Estate") filed suit against the
County alleging negligence. The County raised the affirmative defense of
contributory negligence. The intersection where the accident occurred was
controlled by a traffic light; the parties disputed whether the light was red or
green for Blount.
The matter was tried before a jury in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, where the County requested a jury
instruction indicating that Sergent was operating a motorcycle pursuant to
motorcycle learner's permit, without supervision in violation of Virginia law.
The Estate objected to the proposed jury instruction.
The Court ruled that it would give the requested
instruction, holding that the absence of a motorcycle license indicates that
Sergent had not yet demonstrated at least a minimum of special skill. The Court
further held that if the jury found that Sergent was not driving with all the
skill and care required by law and that absence of an adult providing immediate
supervision was the proximate cause of the accent, then Sergent's violation of
the VA code, requiring supervision of a licensed adult motorcycle driver, was
evidence for the jury to consider in determining liability.
At the trial, the jury found that the County was not
negligent and did not proximately cause the accident; therefore, the jury did
not consider the other issues in the case, including contributory negligence.
The Estate filed a Motion for New Trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(a)(1)(A), arguing that the Court's ruling on instructing the jury that
Sergent was operating the motorcycle in violation of VA law, was prejudicial and
incorrect.
The Estate did not allege that the verdict was against the
clear weight of the evidence, or based upon false evidence. Additionally, the
Estate did not offer any new evidence. The Court found that the Estate's
arguments had already been considered and rejected by the trial judge.
Additionally, the Court found that there was no prejudice in informing the jury
that Sergent was driving with a motorcycle learner's permit without supervision
because the jury did not even reach the issue of contributory negligence. As
such, the Court upheld the prior rulings of the trial judge and denied the
Estate's Motion for New Trial.
Top
