## Facts

- Virginia Ruth Krueger and her husband, William Ryan “Bill” Krueger, were killed when the airplane they owned crashed shortly after takeoff from Woodring Airport in Enid, Oklahoma.
- Virginia’s daughter, Debra Renee Palmer, acting as executrix of Virginia’s estate, brought a wrongful-death action based on alleged negligence in the operation of the aircraft.
- The defendant executor of Bill Krueger’s estate was Richard R. Krueger (Bill’s son).
- The lawsuit was tried to a jury, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
- Palmer moved for a new trial, arguing that trial rulings and the jury charge were erroneous; the district court denied the motion.
- During trial, Richard Krueger made a remark during cross-examination suggesting that it was immoral for Palmer to sue a family member.
- After that remark, Palmer’s counsel made an offer of proof seeking to question Krueger about the source of family discord, including evidence that Krueger allegedly refused to share insurance proceeds from the aircraft and allegedly made disparaging statements about Palmer’s deceased mother.
- The district court barred that line of questioning, stating that the cause of family conflict was collateral to the issues being tried and that references to insurance proceeds would risk unfair prejudice.
- Palmer appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial, arguing that her cross-examination was improperly restricted and that the jury instructions warranted a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting Palmer’s cross-examination of Richard Krueger after his “morality” remark, including excluding evidence tied to insurance proceeds and family discord offered to show bias or motive.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error in the jury instructions challenged in Palmer’s new-trial motion.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants and affirmed the denial of Palmer’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in restricting cross-examination into the asserted reasons for family discord because the subject was collateral and because introducing insurance-related matters posed a substantial risk of unfair prejudice and confusion.
- The court concluded that the challenged jury instructions, viewed as a whole and under the applicable standards for preservation and harmless error, did not warrant reversal or a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to control the mode and scope of cross-examination, including limiting questioning that would sidetrack the trial into collateral disputes or confuse the jury.
- Evidence suggesting the existence or handling of liability insurance is generally inadmissible to prove negligence; even when offered for another purpose (such as bias), it may be excluded if the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. (Fed. R. Evid. 403, 411.)
- A new trial is not required unless an evidentiary ruling or jury-instruction error affected substantial rights; appellate review applies harmless-error principles.
- In reviewing jury instructions, the appellate court considers the charge as a whole; instructional objections generally must be raised with sufficient specificity at trial to be preserved for appellate review.

## Conclusion

Palmer v. Krueger arose from a fatal airplane crash and proceeded to a defense verdict. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err in cutting off cross-examination aimed at explaining family conflict through insurance-related facts after the executor’s “morality” remark, because the inquiry was collateral and carried a serious risk of unfair prejudice. The court also found no reversible basis in the challenged jury instructions or other asserted trial errors and therefore affirmed the denial of a new trial and the judgment.


Palmer v. Krueger, 897 F.2d 1529 (1990)