Case No. 19-1162

Matthew Holmes
v.
Miranda Pomeroy

The plaintiff seeks further review of the court of appeals decision affirming the district court’s refusal to grant a new trial in this personal-injury case. The plaintiff contends the district court erred in concluding that post-collision instances of cell phone use while driving is not relevant to establishing habit or routine under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.406. The plaintiff also contends the district court erred in limiting cross-examination and argument before the jury concerning hearsay statements.

Applicant

Matthew Holmes

Resister

Miranda Pomeroy

Attorney for the Applicant

Matthew M. Sahag

Attorney for the Resister

J. Scott Bardole

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule

Non-Oral

Apr 14, 2021 1:30 PM

Briefs

Supreme Court Opinion

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Summary

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (12 pages pages)

            Michael Holmes appeals the denial of his motion for new trial following a defense verdict in this negligence case arising from the collision of Holmes’s bicycle with Miranda Pomeroy’s automobile.  OPINION HOLDS: (1) The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting questioning designed to elicit hearsay or preventing counsel from arguing hearsay evidence supported Holmes’s case; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Holmes’s admissions that the accident was “his fault”; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to admit evidence that Pomeroy used a phone while driving as habit evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.406; and (4) error was not preserved on Holmes’s complaints about misconduct during closing arguments.