F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
DEC 11 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
KIRK REED and JENNIFER GORDON,
Parents of Travis Reed, Deceased,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. No. 01-7056
LANDSTAR LIGON, INC., a
corporation, JACK PIERCE TRUCKING
CO., and DONALD LEE
LAMBERTSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 00-CV-397-P)
Edward J. Kionka (S. Daniel George, Sallisaw Oklahoma, and H. Ray Hodnett, Van
Buren, Arkansas, with him on the briefs), Carbondale, Illinois, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Joseph R. Farris (Jody R. Nathan with him on the brief), Feldman, Franden, Woodard &
Farris, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
This is a negligence action brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs’ fifteen-year-old son, Travis Reed, was driving an all
terrain vehicle on a rural road in Oklahoma when a truck driven by Defendant
Lambertson struck and killed him. A jury returned a verdict for $500,000, and
apportioned sixty percent fault to the truck driver and forty percent fault to Travis,
resulting in an overall verdict for Plaintiffs for $300,000. Plaintiffs appeal only the jury’s
apportionment of fault, arguing the district court improperly instructed the jury that the all
terrain vehicle was illegally on the road at the time of the accident. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
I.
In April 2000, Plaintiffs attended a family gathering in rural farm country in
Oklahoma. Plaintiffs’ son, Travis Reed, wanted to drive his grandfather’s all terrain
vehicle (ATV) to his aunt’s home nearby. After receiving permission to take the ATV,
Travis drove it down the driveway and onto the roadway. On the road, a hill prevented
easy observation of oncoming traffic, both for persons exiting the driveway, and for
persons cresting the hill. After Travis entered the roadway, a truck being driven by
Defendant Donald Lee Lambertson approached Travis’ ATV from behind. The truck
moved over to the left to pass Travis. Evidence presented at trial suggested that just as
the truck approached the ATV, Travis, who apparently was unaware of the truck’s
presence, moved over to the left without signaling his intentions. In response,
Lambertson slammed on his brakes, locking the wheels, and the truck slid out of control.
The truck hit the ATV, killing Travis. Travis’ parents sued the driver Lambertson; the
-2-
trucking company, Defendant Landstar Ligon, Inc.; and the agent and operator of the
truck, Defendant Jack Pierce Trucking Company.
At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Lambertson sixty percent negligent and
Travis forty percent negligent. The jury awarded $500,000 in damages, which the district
court apportioned according to comparative negligence, resulting in an overall verdict for
Plaintiffs for $300,000. Plaintiffs appeal, claiming the district court erred by instructing
the jury that ATVs “shall not . . . be permitted on the streets or highways of this state”
(Instruction #14). Plaintiffs argue the erroneous instruction allowed the jury to infer
Travis was negligent per se for being on the road at all, and therefore the jury may have
misapportioned comparative fault. Plaintiffs appeal the jury’s apportionment of fault, but
not the overall amount of damages.
II.
While the substance of a jury instruction in a diversity case is a matter of state law,
the grant or denial thereof is a matter of federal procedural law. Blanke v. Alexander,
152 F.3d 1224, 1232 (10th Cir. 1998). We review for an abuse of discretion the district
court’s refusal to give a particular instruction. Id. We review de novo whether, as a
whole, the instructions correctly stated the governing law and provided the jury with an
ample understanding of the issues and applicable standards. Id.1
1
Defendants argue Plaintiffs did not preserve their objection to Instruction 14
because Plaintiffs objected before, but not after, the court instructed the jury. See Smith
(continued...)
-3-
Quoting from 47 Okla. Stat. § 1151(E), the district court instructed the jury that
ATVs “shall not . . . be permitted to be operated on the streets or highways of this state.”
Plaintiffs contend that although generally ATVs are not permitted on the road, the ATV
Travis was driving was an implement of husbandry legally on the road. Thus, the primary
question on appeal is whether, under Oklahoma law, the ATV in this case was an
implement of husbandry legally on the road at the time of the accident.
Oklahoma’s motor vehicle laws generally prohibit ATVs from being operated on
the State’s streets or highways. 47 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1151(E). Oklahoma has carved out
1
(...continued)
v. Greyhound Lines Inc., 382 F.2d 190, 191 (10th Cir. 1967) (holding a party failed to
preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court
instructing the jury, but not after). Defendants argue we therefore should review
Plaintiffs’ claim for plain error. Smith relied on Dunn v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
Co., 370 F.2d 681 (10th Cir. 1966) for its holding. But Dunn did not require a party to
object immediately before deliberations. See Dunn, 370 F.2d at 684 (stating that while
the Court would “not say that an objection may never be properly preserved to a charge in
advance,” the objecting party must object with “sufficient specificity and distinctness”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 was amended after Smith specifically to allow pre-
instruction resolution of objections to the instructions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 advisory
committee’s note (1987). Plaintiffs sufficiently preserved their objection to Instruction 14
by objecting at the instruction conference and specifically stating as grounds for the
objection that the ATV was an implement of husbandry legally on the road. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 51 (party must object to an instruction “before the jury retires to consider its
verdict”); Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll., 152 F.3d 1253, 1262 n.5 (10th Cir. 1998)
(plaintiff’s objections at pretrial and instruction conferences sufficient to preserve issue);
Abercrombie v. Osteopathic Hosp. Founders Ass’n, 950 F.2d 676, 679 (10th Cir. 1991)
(plaintiff properly preserved pre-instruction objection by making clear which instruction
was at issue and the grounds for objection). Consequently, we do not review this
objection to Instruction 14 for plain error. Instead, we apply the usual standards in a
diversity case.
-4-
an exception from motor vehicle requirements, however, permitting “implements of
husbandry” to operate on the roadways so long as they are equipped with the appropriate
safety devices. Id. § 11-406. Certain ATVs may qualify as an implement of husbandry
when properly equipped and “when used for agricultural, horticultural or livestock-raising
operations.” Id. § 1-125(3).
No Oklahoma case exists interpreting these provisions.2 Thus, as a federal court
sitting in diversity, we must predict how Oklahoma’s highest court would resolve this
issue. See Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1118 (10th Cir. 2002). We review the
federal district court’s determination of state law de novo. See Salve Regina Coll. v.
Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 239 (1991). Plaintiffs contend the motor vehicle laws permit
ATVs on the roads when the ATV generally is used for farming, and the legality does not
2
We reviewed whether a fertilizer spreader was an implement of husbandry under
Oklahoma law in Bingham v. Hollingsworth Mfg. Co., Inc., 695 F.2d 445 (10th Cir.
1982). In that case, the plaintiff sued the manufacturer of a fertilizer spreader she was
towing behind her pickup truck after the spreader jack-knifed on the freeway. Plaintiff
argued the spreader was required under the motor vehicle laws to be equipped with
brakes. The manufacturer argued the spreader was exempt from the brakes requirement
as an implement of husbandry. We held the spreader was an implement of husbandry not
subject to the brakes requirement because we considered the spreader’s ability to haul
fertilizer on the highway as “an incidental use.” Bingham, 695 F.2d at 454. Bingham
does not change our analysis here. In Bingham, the question was whether the spreader
was an implement of husbandry not subject to motor vehicle equipment requirements.
We note that in Bingham, the spreader was being used for a farm purpose, as the plaintiff
was hauling the fertilizer from her local source of supply to her farm. See id. at 446-47;
47 Okla. Stat.§ 1-125 (permitting farm wagon type tank trailers on the road for the limited
purpose of bringing fertilizer from a local source of supply to a farm) (1981). Plaintiffs
concede Bingham does not control in this case. See Appellants’ Br. at 25 n.2 (noting
Bingham “is not pertinent here”).
-5-
depend on the specific purpose of each trip. Defendants successfully argued to the
district court that the ATV was not an implement of husbandry because Travis was not
using it for an agricultural purpose at the time of the accident. We agree. Section 1-125
contains a general definition of “implement of husbandry” followed by three specific
definitions of qualifying vehicles. The general definition refers to devices “designed and
adapted so as to be used exclusively” for farming. The three specific definitions include
limitations on the time, manner or purpose of the device’s use to qualify as an implement
of husbandry. For example, in subsection one, a farm wagon type tank trailer is not an
implement of husbandry unless “used during the liquid fertilizer season” and “moved on
the highways only for bringing the fertilizer” from one specified location to another. In
subsection two, trailers or semitrailers must be “used exclusively for the purpose of
transporting farm products to market.” Finally, in subsection three, an ATV qualifies
“when used” for farming.
Thus, despite Plaintiffs’ argument that the purpose of the trip cannot determine the
legality of the ATV’s presence on the roadway, the statute’s plain language compels this
conclusion. George E. Failing Co. v. Watkins, 14 P.3d 52, 56 (Okla. 2000) (“In the
process of giving meaning to any statute, the starting point is the plain and ordinary
significance of the language employed in the text.”). A trailer transporting farm products
to market lawfully could travel on the road, while the exact same trailer would be
unlawfully on the road if the driver were going to the movies. Similarly, the ATV
-6-
lawfully could have been on the road if Travis were delivering a bale of hay to horses in
another field, but was not lawful where Travis’ purpose was a social visit.
Allowing certain farm vehicles to lawfully be on the road only for a few limited
purposes is not illogical. “The implement of husbandry exception to vehicle codes was
designed to allow farmers occasionally to tow non-complying farm equipment along the
highways as they traveled short distances from one field to another or from their fields to
storage areas.” Bingham v. Hollingsworth Mfg. Co., Inc., 695 F.2d 445, 453 (10th Cir.
1982). But the statutes limit this privilege to the purposes for which it was enacted: only
when the device is being used for certain farming activities. Plaintiffs’ contention that a
vehicle’s legality is defined by its primary purpose would contravene the purpose of the
statute. We agree with the district court that the Oklahoma motor vehicle laws are
designed to restrict ATV use on the streets. Interpreting the statutes to allow ATVs
primarily used for farming to be driven on the road at any time for any purpose would
conflict with this general intent. The exception for implements of husbandry is limited in
scope and does not create a free pass for recreational ATV use on the roads once the ATV
has been equipped and is used for farming. Because Travis was not using the ATV for
farming, he was not lawfully present on the roadway.
Plaintiffs argue this reading renders the statute unenforceable because officers
would have to stop each ATV and inquire into the driver’s purpose to determine whether
the driver was complying with the law. We note that other traffic laws suffer from this
-7-
alleged infirmity. For example, an officer will never know whether a driver is properly
licensed unless he stops the vehicle and inquires. Plaintiffs’ own construction of the
statute also would rely on subjective determinations, as the officer would not be able to
tell just by looking at an ATV whether it is used “primarily” for farming. And we
question Plaintiffs’ contention that these provisions are unenforceable absent questioning
each individual operator of an implement of husbandry. Officers can observe the
vehicle’s characteristics and its behavior. For example, an officer who follows the
vehicle to the local shopping mall or bowling alley would have a basis for issuing a ticket
absent any inquiry of the driver. The district court properly instructed the jury on this
matter.3
III.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that even if Travis was illegally on the road, that
violation could not be used as evidence of Travis’ contributory negligence unless the
violation itself was causally connected to his death. Plaintiffs argue Travis’ purpose for
being on the roadway has no causal connection to whether he negligently operated the
ATV. For example, if we assume his purpose for being on the road was for farming (and
3
Defendants further argue that even if the ATV was an implement of husbandry,
the ATV still was unlawfully on the road because the testimony showed it was not
equipped with the required safety devices. Because we find the ATV was not an
implement of husbandry lawfully on the road, we need not address this argument.
Because we need not address the issue of safety devices, we deny as moot Plaintiffs-
Appellants’ motion to supplement their argument on the safety devices.
-8-
consequently he was legally on the road), the accident would have occurred exactly the
same way. Thus, Plaintiffs contend the purpose of the trip does not make the driver any
more or less negligent.
“When considering a party’s challenge to jury instructions, our initial inquiry is
whether the party properly preserved that issue for appeal by objecting at the district court
level to the instruction on the same grounds raised on appeal.” Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Tel.,
Inc., 931 F.2d 655, 660 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 (party objecting to a
jury instruction must state “distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the
objection”). A party’s stated grounds for objection to a jury instruction must be
“‘obvious, plain, or unmistakable.’” Comcoa, 931 F.2d at 660 (quoting Aspen Highlands
Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir. 1984)).
Although Plaintiffs clearly objected to Instruction 14 below, Plaintiffs raise the
proximate cause argument as grounds for its objection for the first time on appeal.
Below, Plaintiffs argued that under Oklahoma law, the ATV qualified as an implement of
husbandry. In making that argument, Plaintiffs asserted that the purpose of the trip did
not make a driver more or less negligent. But Plaintiffs offered this reasoning to support
their statutory construction argument that it made no sense to limit an ATV as an
implement of husbandry to circumstances when the driver’s purpose was related to
farming. Plaintiffs did not mention to the district court proximate cause, nor did they
-9-
suggest Instruction 14 was irrelevant even if Travis was illegally on the road.4 Plaintiffs
did not “obviously, plainly, or unmistakably” object below on the specific ground that
even if Travis was illegally on the road, his statutory violation had no causal connection
to the accident.
Defendants did not raise Plaintiffs’ failure to object on these grounds in
Defendants’ appellate brief. Plaintiffs argue Defendants have waived the issue, and we
therefore should review this matter de novo. We decline to ignore Plaintiffs’ failure to
object on this ground before the district court. A properly stated objection puts the
district court on notice that it may be committing error, and gives the district court an
opportunity to correct that error. Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 553 (10th
Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs’ failure to bring this matter to the district court’s attention denied
the district court this opportunity.
Assuming Plaintiffs are correct that the district court should not have given
4
Contrary to the concurrence’s suggestion, Plaintiffs never argued to the district
court that regardless of its interpretation of the Oklahoma motor vehicle laws, Travis’
illegal presence on the roadway was not causally connected to this accident. During the
jury settlement conference, Defendants focused solely on whether the ATV qualified as
an implement of husbandry under the relevant statutes in response to Plaintiffs’ objection.
The district court clearly did not understand Plaintiffs to be arguing causation, as its
ruling was limited strictly to construing the statutory provisions. Once the district court
interpreted the statutes against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs made no attempt to inform the district
court that despite its ruling on the statutes’ meaning, Instruction 14 still was improper
because Travis’ illegal presence on the roadway had no causal connection to the accident.
Plaintiff’s objection was not “obviously, plainly, or unmistakably” based on causation.
See Comcoa, 931 F.2d at 660.
-10-
Instruction 14, we would have to remand for a new trial on apportionment of comparative
fault. Rule 51 “was designed to prevent unnecessary new trials caused by errors in jury
instructions that the district court could have corrected if timely brought to its attention.”
Reynolds v. Green, 184 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Beech Aircraft Corp. v.
United States, 51 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to object “leaves open the
possibility of a lengthy and expensive retrial”). Remand also would give Plaintiffs a
second bite at the apple based on their own failure to act. See Horstmyer v. Black &
Decker, (U.S.), Inc., 151 F.3d 765, 771 (8th Cir. 1998) (“The purpose of Rule 51 is . . . to
prevent the losing party from obtaining a new trial through relying on a possible error in
the original trial.”) (citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).5
Because Plaintiffs did not raise this argument before the district court, we review
Plaintiffs’ proximate cause argument for plain error. Giron v. Corrections Corp. of
America, 191 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir. 1999). We will reverse under the plain error
standard only in exceptional circumstances “where the error was patently plainly
erroneous and prejudicial.” Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted). We find no
5
The concurrence argues we should apply waivers mutually, and not make an
argument for Defendants which they did not make for themselves on appeal. All waivers
are not equal, however. The purpose of Rule 51 is not simply to preserve an argument for
appeal, but to give the district court an opportunity to correct any perceived error. Had
Plaintiffs properly objected below, the district court could have ruled on causation.
Instead, Plaintiffs ask us to order a costly and burdensome retrial based on their failure to
adequately bring this issue to the district court’s attention. For the reasons discussed
above, we decline to do so.
-11-
plain error here. The district court instructed the jury, “If you find that either party
violated any one of the statutes and the violation was the direct cause of the accident, then
such violation in and of itself would make such person negligent.” (emphasis added). The
district court also instructed the jury: “Direct cause means the cause which, in a natural
and continuous sequence, without the intervention of any other cause, produces the loss
and without which the result would not have happened.” These instructions adequately
explained to the jury that a party violating a statute is not negligent per se unless the
violation directly caused the accident. Thus, the instructions are not patently plainly
erroneous.
We presume the jury followed the district court’s instructions. Hale v. Gibson,
227 F.3d 1298, 1325 (10th Cir. 2000). Putting aside the question of whether the ATV
was lawfully on the road, the record contained evidence Travis was otherwise negligent.
Defendants presented evidence Travis turned left without looking behind him, failed to
signal his turn, and did not make a proper left turn. Thus the jury had some basis other
than Travis’ traffic violation to apportion a significant share of comparative negligence to
him.
AFFIRMED.
-12-
No. 01-7056, Reed v. Landstar Ligon
MURPHY, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result but depart from the reasoning of the majority decision insofar
as it relies on Plaintiffs’ purported waiver of a trial objection to Instruction 14 on the
grounds of proximate cause. It is clear from the record that Plaintiffs objected to
Instruction 14 on the grounds of causation, arguing that even if Travis violated Oklahoma
motor vehicle law, such a violation was irrelevant in determining negligence. The
majority decision reasons that the district court did not understand Plaintiffs’ objection to
be on the grounds of proximate cause. Certainly the failure of the district court to
articulate an understanding of an objection is not the test for preservation of the objection.
See Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Telephones, Inc., 931 F.2d 655, 660 (10th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, Defendants’ failure to assert on appeal waiver of a proximate cause objection
may well constitute a waiver itself or an acknowledgment that Plaintiffs’ objection was at
least minimally sufficient. At any rate, there should be mutuality in the application of the
waiver doctrines lest the court find itself making an unarticulated argument for one party
but not the other. See Rodriguez v. IBP, Inc., 243 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 2001)
(reasoning that the court will not make arguments for a party that it did not make for itself
on appeal).1
1
The majority decision concludes that Plaintiffs’ alleged waiver of a trial
objection should be enforced despite Defendants’ failure to raise the waiver on appeal.
As support for its conclusion to ignore Defendants’ waiver, the majority decision
concludes “[a]ll waivers are not equal” and reasons that “Plaintiffs ask us to order a costly
(continued...)
A “district court’s decision to give a particular jury instruction [is reviewed] for
abuse of discretion; ultimately, however, we apply a de novo standard of review to
determine the propriety of an individual jury instruction to which objection was made at
time of trial.” Osteguin v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 144 F.3d 1293, 1295 (10th Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted); see also O’Neal v. Ferguson Constr. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1256 (10th
Cir. 2001). This court must determine whether the jury instructions viewed as a whole
“properly stated the applicable law and directed the jury to consider matters within its
province.” Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 816 (10th Cir. 1996).
The district court instructed the jury as follows:
In addition to the duty to exercise ordinary care there are also duties
imposed by statutes. If you find that either party violated any one of the statutes
and the violation was the direct cause of the accident, then such violation in and of
itself would make such person negligent.
The violation of a statute is to be deemed negligence per se if the accident
(A) was caused by the statute’s violation, (B) was of the type intended to be
prevented by the statute and (C) the plaintiff or defendant was one of the class
meant to be protected by the ordinance.
There was in force and effect in Oklahoma at the time of the occurrence the
following pertinent statutes:
....
Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 1151
(E) Self-propelled or motor-driven cycles, known and commonly referred to
1
(...continued)
and burdensome retrial based on their failure to adequately bring the issue to the district
court’s attention.” Such an argument is unpersuasive, however, because Plaintiffs are
ultimately unsuccessful on this issue, obviating any need to order a retrial.
-2-
2
as “minibikes” and other similar trade names, shall not be registered under the
provisions of the Oklahoma Vehicle License and Registration Act or be permitted
to be operated on the streets or highways of this state . . . . The provisions of this
subsection shall also apply to those motor-driven or operated vehicles known as
“all-terrain vehicles,” which are manufactured principally for use off the roads . . .
.
Plaintiffs argue if Travis had been on the road for an agricultural purpose, his
conduct would have been lawful under Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-406 (permitting the use of
“implements of husbandry” on Oklahoma roadways other than highways). Because,
under this theory, Travis’ unlawful purpose for being on the road did not contribute to the
accident, there was no causal connection between Travis’ violation of Oklahoma law and
his death. Therefore, plaintiffs argue, the district court erred in instructing the jury that
they could consider Travis’ violation of Okla. Stat. tit 47, § 1151 in determining whether
he was negligent.
Under Oklahoma motor vehicle law, ATVs are generally prohibited on
Oklahoma’s streets and highways. See Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 1151(E). Section 11-406
provides for a narrow exception to this general prohibition for “implements of husbandry”
driven on roadways other than highways. Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-406. Contrary to
Plaintiffs’ argument, the ATV operator’s purpose in driving on a roadway does not
determine whether the ATV operator violated § 1151. Rather, the mere act of driving an
ATV on a street or highway is a violation of § 1151. The ATV operator’s purpose is
relevant only to determine whether his otherwise unlawful conduct is deemed lawful
-3-
3
under the narrow exception in § 11-406. To adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed interpretation of
Oklahoma law would render the general prohibition of ATVs on Oklahoma streets and
highways in § 1151 meaningless. See TWA v. McKinley, 749 P.2d 108, 110 (Okla. 1988)
(holding when two statutes cover the same general subject, the statutes are “construed
together in order to arrive at the legislative intent in any particular section”).
Because the jury could have found that Travis’ presence on the road in violation of
§ 1151 contributed in part to his death, the district court did not err in instructing the jury
that they could consider Travis’ violation of Oklahoma law in determining whether he
was negligent. Moreover, the instructions informed the jury that they were to consider
whether the violation of Oklahoma motor vehicle law caused Plaintiffs’ injury.
Accordingly, the jury instructions were proper.
-4-
4