Missouri appeals court finds trial error in truck accident case

Summary

• Missouri Court of Appeals reversed truck accident jury verdict.
• Court found driving record evidence was improperly admitted.
• Plaintiff sought over $1 million in damages from crash.
• Case remanded after finding prejudicial impact on jury.

The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District reversed and remanded a St. Louis County Circuit Court judgment in a tort case involving a truck accident and liability determination.

The opinion was handed down April 21, authored by Judge Angela T. Quigless with Presiding Judge Renee D. Hardin-Tammons and Judge Thomas C. Clark II concurring.

The appeal goes back to a March 2025 jury verdict that found neither the plaintiff nor the defendant at fault for an accident involving the truck driven by the defendant’s employee.

The plaintiff, Keith Taylor, sought over $1 million in damages for the collision; however, the St. Louis County jury found the defendant B&D Hauling and its employee, Hurshel Head, not at fault.

The incident occurred in 2022 in north St. Louis County off Interstate 270. Head was driving the company’s commercial dump truck near the Washington Street-Elizabeth Avenue exit when he collided with Taylor’s Dodge Charger. Taylor had four passengers with him — his then-girlfriend Asha Medley-Turner and their three children.

Head died before trial and was dismissed from the lawsuit; a video deposition he took prior to his death was played for the jury. The deposition included questions about Head’s driving record and license. Taylor filed objections to those questions, claiming the “‘designated questions are irrelevant, any probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial value, and [are] misleading to the jury as it confuses the issues.’” The trial court allowed the designations to be entered into evidence, and counsel for the plaintiff stated on the record multiple times at trial that they objected.

After the jury found neither party at fault for the collision, Taylor appealed, claiming the evidence about Head’s driver’s license and lack of prior accidents constituted improper character evidence. The defendant argued that this concern was not brought up until appeal, and that since the plaintiff cited Head’s age and physical condition at the time of his deposition during trial, it opened the door to evidence of Head’s driving record.

The appellate court sided with Taylor, finding that “the evidence” of Head’s driving record
“was inadmissible and prejudiced Plaintiff.”

“Generally, a party’s character is irrelevant in a civil action and cannot be inquired into unless put in issue by the nature of the proceeding, such as libel, slander, malicious prosecution, and so forth, where damage to character or reputation is an issue,” the April 22 opinion stated, citing Williams v. Bailey and Farley v. Johnny Londoff Chevrolet, Inc. “Evidence on the collateral issue of character — like a record on the collateral issue of good driving — is inadmissible because ‘it comes with too much dangerous baggage of prejudice, distraction from the issues, and surprise.’”

Addressing the defendant’s other arguments, the court found that the plaintiff had raised formal objections to the deposition questions prior to the appeal.

“The trial transcript shows that the court and both parties were well aware of the basis of Plaintiff’s objection concerning the admission of the evidence of Mr. Head’s safe driving record,” the opinion stated. “Having considered the arguments of both parties during the pre-trial conference and having the basis for objection reiterated for the record before seating the jury, the trial court clearly understood the basis of Plaintiff’s objection at trial.”

The court also rejected the defendant’s reliance on the doctrine of curative admissibility, noting it would require first determination that the plaintiff’s references to Hurshel Head’s age and physical condition were improperly admitted, an issue not before the court on appeal.

The court also found no merit to the defendant’s claim that any error was harmless, finding the admission of Head’s driving record was clearly improper and prejudicial. It concluded the evidence served only to confuse the issue of negligence and invite sympathy, noting defense counsel repeatedly emphasized Head’s accident-free career in closing arguments

“There is no question that the evidence was erroneously admitted .. The only question is its prejudicial effect,” the court wrote. “Defendant’s argument exploited improperly admitted evidence for the purpose of eliciting sympathy, and the proverbial bell had been rung thus ensuring the prejudicial effect of the evidence.”

The case is Taylor v. B&D Hauling, Inc., Case No. ED113578.