Higgins v. Hicks Co.

756 F.2d 681 (8th Cir. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, under contract with the State of South Dakota, was resurfacing the interstate with asphalt. There was a 5.4 mile stretch of highway that had been resurfaced on the passing lane of eastbound I-90 but not on the driving lane. This left a 3-4 inch ridge over which a driver had to maneuver to move from the driving lane to the passing lane. Martinez (P) lost control of his motorcycle when moving from the driving lane to the passing lane and was fatally injured. Teal (P) also lost control of his vehicle when changing lanes on this 5.4-mile stretch and claims damages as a result of the injuries he sustained. Ps claim that Ds were negligent in opening both eastbound lanes on I-90 at this 5.4-mile stretch without adequate warning signs. Ds deny any negligence and claim Martinez and Teal were contributorily negligent in operating their motorcycles at a speed greater than was reasonable under the circumstances and in failing to keep a proper lookout. Ds got the verdict and Ps appealed. Ps contend, in part, that it was error for the court to refuse to admit evidence that the State of South Dakota carries liability insurance. Ps contend that evidence of the state's liability insurance was admissible to eliminate any bias of the jurors as taxpayers of the State of South Dakota.