## Facts

- Robert Kostelecky was injured on an oil rig near Killdeer, North Dakota, when his hand and wrist were hurt during rig operations.
- Kostelecky worked for Noble Drilling Corporation, which was involved in drilling operations on the rig.
- NL Acme Tool Company/NL Industries, Inc. (NL) was involved on the rig to perform specialized operations and field service work.
- Kostelecky sued NL for negligence, alleging NL’s actions (including the conduct of NL personnel on the rig) caused or contributed to his injury.
- Jester Beck, a coworker and eyewitness, completed a written accident report shortly after the incident.
- In the report, Beck attributed the accident to Kostelecky’s own conduct and stated it could have been avoided if Kostelecky had followed warnings and instructions given just before the accident.
- The manner in which the accident occurred and who was at fault were disputed at trial.
- Over Kostelecky’s objection, the district court admitted Beck’s accident report into evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for NL, finding NL was not negligent, and judgment was entered for NL.
- Kostelecky (and his wife, asserting related claims) appealed, challenging multiple evidentiary and trial-management rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting Beck’s accident report, including Beck’s evaluative statements that the accident was caused by the injured’s own conduct.
2. Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on an agency relationship involving NL and Gulf Oil Corporation after Gulf had been dismissed.
3. Whether the special verdict form was unsupported by the evidence or was confusing or misleading.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering separate trials on liability and damages.
5. Whether the district court erred by quashing a subpoena duces tecum directed to an NL employee for documents.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for NL.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Beck’s accident report; as an eyewitness account recorded shortly after the event, it qualified as permissible lay opinion based on Beck’s perceptions and was not inadmissible merely because it addressed fault.
- The challenged agency instruction, considered with the instructions as a whole, did not misstate the law or mislead the jury; given the jury’s finding of no negligence by NL, the agency dispute did not provide a basis for reversal.
- The special verdict form fell within the trial court’s discretion and did not confuse or mislead the jury in deciding the negligence questions.
- Bifurcating liability and damages was within the district court’s discretion under Rule 42(b); because the jury found no liability, any claimed prejudice tied to a damages phase was not shown to have affected the outcome.
- Quashing the subpoena duces tecum was within the court’s discretion in managing trial process and discovery, and the plaintiffs did not show the ruling deprived them of necessary, outcome-changing evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Admission of lay opinion testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion; under Fed. R. Evid. 701, a lay opinion may be admitted if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury.
- An opinion is not automatically excluded because it goes to an ultimate issue; Fed. R. Evid. 704(a) permits such testimony when otherwise admissible.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; reversal is warranted only when the instructions misstate the law or mislead the jury and cause prejudice.
- The wording and structure of a special verdict form are committed to the trial court’s discretion; reversal requires a showing the form confused or misled the jury on the governing issues.
- Separate trials on liability and damages may be ordered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to aid efficiency; absent a showing of prejudice affecting the liability determination, bifurcation is not reversible error.
- Decisions to quash trial subpoenas and manage document production are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellant must show the ruling caused meaningful harm to the ability to prove the case.

## Conclusion

In Kostelecky v. NL Acme Tool/NL Industries, Inc., the Eighth Circuit affirmed a defense verdict in an oil-rig injury negligence case, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting an eyewitness accident report attributing fault to the plaintiff and that the challenged instruction, special verdict form, bifurcation order, and subpoena ruling did not justify reversal given the jury’s finding that NL was not negligent.


Kostelecky v. NL Acme Tool/NL Industries, Inc., 837 F.2d 828 (1988)