KIMMEL v. PONTIAKOWSKI, 3:13cv2229. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20141120f40
Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge. AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of November 2014, defendants' motions in limine (Docs. 61, 63, 65 & 67) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence of wage loss, loss of income and loss of future earning capacity (Doc. 61) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Defendants' motion to preclude evidence of wage loss and loss of income is GRANTED as unopposed; a
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge. AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of November 2014, defendants' motions in limine (Docs. 61, 63, 65 & 67) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence of wage loss, loss of income and loss of future earning capacity (Doc. 61) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Defendants' motion to preclude evidence of wage loss and loss of income is GRANTED as unopposed; an..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge.
AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of November 2014, defendants' motions in limine (Docs. 61, 63, 65 & 67) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence of wage loss, loss of income and loss of future earning capacity (Doc. 61) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. Defendants' motion to preclude evidence of wage loss and loss of income is GRANTED as unopposed; and
b. Defendants' motion to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff's loss of future earning capacity is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
i. The court will deny defendants' motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff's diminished future earning capacity regarding her plans to return to work as a nurse.
ii. The court will grant defendants' motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff's diminished earning capacity pertaining to her plans to open a bakery out of her home;
2. Defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of medical expenses or costs (Doc. 63) is DENIED;
3. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing evidence of injuries not causally related to the incident (Doc. 65) is DENIED with regard to injuries that plaintiff's doctors report were caused by the accident; and
4. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from referring to Defendant Pontiakowski as a "professional driver" or asserting that a commercial motor vehicle driver owes a higher duty of care (Doc. 67) is GRANTED as unopposed.
It is further ORDERED that plaintiff may question defendants as to their duty of care without reference to Defendant Pontiakowski's status as a commercial motor vehicle operator.
Source: Leagle
