## Facts

- Sharri Lynn Gamerdinger was injured in a collision inside a Deere & Company facility involving a motorized cart she drove and a forklift driven by Deere employee Patrick Schaefer.
- The accident occurred when Schaefer backed a forklift out of a trailer and struck Gamerdinger’s cart.
- Gamerdinger sought damages for personal injuries; her husband, Thomas Paul Gamerdinger, asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- Plaintiffs offered testimony from two retired Deere employees that Schaefer routinely failed to follow forklift safety procedures when unloading trailers, including repeatedly backing without adequate lookout; the witnesses claimed they had complained to supervisors about this conduct for years.
- The trial court excluded the testimony unless defendants “opened the door” by asserting Schaefer was a careful or safe driver; defendants did not, and the jury did not hear the proffered testimony.
- The jury allocated fault 50% to Sharri Gamerdinger, 30% to Deere, and 20% to Schaefer; it awarded past and future medical expenses but no damages for pain and suffering or loss of function, and no consortium damages.
- The district court granted a new trial after concluding the damages verdict was inconsistent and proposing an additur that both sides rejected.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on the asserted inconsistency of awarding medical expenses but no damages for pain and suffering or loss of function.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding plaintiffs’ proffered coworker testimony as inadmissible character evidence rather than admissible habit evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 406.
3. Whether the exclusion of the proffered habit evidence warranted a new trial.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the order granting a new trial.
- The court affirmed on an alternative ground: erroneous exclusion of habit evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 406.
- The court treated the coworker testimony as evidence of specific, regular conduct in a recurring situation (habit), not general carelessness (character).
- The court held the trial court improperly conditioned admissibility on defendants “opening the door” by claiming Schaefer was careful.
- The court concluded the evidentiary error was sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial and did not need to resolve defendants’ challenges to the trial court’s inconsistency/additur rationale.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of an order granting a new trial is for abuse of discretion, but an appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
- Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 406, evidence of a person’s habit—regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with specific conduct—is admissible to prove conduct in conformity on a particular occasion.
- Habit evidence is distinct from character evidence; specificity and regularity in a defined context support classification as habit.
- A trial court errs by excluding qualifying habit evidence on the theory it is inadmissible character evidence or by requiring a party to “open the door” before habit evidence may be admitted.
- Exclusion of habit evidence bearing directly on the central negligence question can be prejudicial and support a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the new trial because the trial court wrongly excluded coworker testimony describing Schaefer’s repeated, situation-specific forklift practices, which qualified as admissible habit evidence under Rule 406 and could materially affect the jury’s liability and fault allocation.


Gamerdinger v. Schaefer, 603 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 1999)