## Facts

- Florence Krueger sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under uninsured motorist coverage for the wrongful death of her husband, Joseph Krueger, alleging an uninsured driver, Gladys Batchman, negligently caused the fatal collision.
- On April 16, 1979, Florence and Joseph were driving west on Missouri Highway 50 near Union, Missouri, approaching their home on the south side of the highway.
- Florence pulled their car off the roadway onto the north shoulder just west of their driveway after noticing a pickup truck in the driveway.
- The pickup belonged to Anthony Castelli, who had stopped to discuss buying hay from Joseph.
- Joseph exited the car, walked behind it, and began crossing the highway toward Castelli.
- The roadway had two travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and shoulders.
- Batchman was driving eastbound at approximately 50–55 mph and first noticed Joseph standing on the opposite shoulder behind his car.
- The dispute at trial centered on when Joseph entered a position of imminent peril, what Batchman reasonably could perceive, and whether she had time and available means to avoid impact by slowing, stopping, or swerving.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for State Farm on both simple negligence and Missouri’s humanitarian doctrine theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict for State Farm was against the weight of the evidence under simple negligence and Missouri’s humanitarian doctrine.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding lay opinion testimony from witness Anthony Castelli about how the accident occurred and whether it could have been avoided.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for State Farm.
- The court held the record contained ample evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of liability under both simple negligence and the humanitarian doctrine, and the denial of a new trial was not a clear abuse of discretion.
- The court held exclusion of Castelli’s lay opinion testimony was within the trial judge’s broad discretion and did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing denial of a new trial, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence; it asks whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could reach the verdict.
- Under Missouri’s humanitarian doctrine, liability depends on whether, after the plaintiff enters a position of imminent peril, the defendant had the ability, with the means at hand and the highest degree of care, to avoid the injury.
- Lay opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 is admissible only if it is helpful to the jury; trial courts have broad discretion to exclude opinions that are cumulative or add little beyond the underlying factual evidence.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a defense verdict in an uninsured motorist wrongful-death action because the jury could reasonably find the driver lacked a sufficient opportunity to avoid the collision under either negligence or the humanitarian doctrine, and the trial court permissibly excluded a witness’s lay opinion on avoidability as unhelpful given the other evidence.


Krueger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 707 F.2d 312 (8th Cir. 1983)