Iowa Judicial Branch Building
DES MOINES, Iowa – The Iowa Supreme Court will let stand a $26 million jury verdict in the case of a woman accused of being on her phone when she was struck by a tractor-trailer and seriously injured.
Defendant West Side Transport argued the verdict was the product of an improper closing argument by the plaintiff’s lawyer, while the McQuillen family said the appeal was mooted by a settlement reached after trial.
The court last week agreed with neither. Justice David May wrote that the settlement presented only showed how the defendants’ insurers can pay the judgment and was not a complete agreement that disposed of the appeal.
And the events leading to the jury’s large verdict were above board, he added while rejecting allegations it wasn’t properly instructed, was told a friend of the victim used as a rebuttal witness was an “expert” on SnapChat and was not informed about the “time value of money” to determine damages.
The accident occurred on March 19, 2020, on Highway 151. It was alleged driver Clifford Takes crossed Margaret McQuillen’s lane of traffic to make a left turn, leading McQuillen’s car to slide under the trailer.
The top off the car was “basically sheared off,” May wrote. McQuillen was resuscitated at a hospital after her breathing and pulse stopped, with a doctor testifying she’d been medically dead.
She had about 100 fractures on her skull and evidence showed she will experience permanent brain damage. The jury found her 27% at fault for not keeping a lookout, which reduced its verdict from $35.8 million to $26.1 million.
One of the theories that jurors had to weigh was that McQuillen was on SnapChat while driving. A digital forensics expert who investigated her phone said the screen had last been “manipulated 13 seconds before the collision.” She’d also read a SnapChat message 42 seconds before the wreck.
Grace Lubben was summoned as a rebuttal witness by the plaintiffs. She was 21 years old at the time and is a childhood friend of McQuillen who often shared locations with her via Snap Map.
When she heard her friend was in a wreck, Lubben checked the Snap Map, which requires the user to activate. McQuillen’s last location was at her home, and Lubben testified this meant McQuillen “had not been using SnapChat at the time of the accident.”
During closing arguments, McQuillen’s lawyer called her a “SnapChat expert,” likening her status to the digital forensics expert who testified for the defendant. West Side moved for a mistrial for that portrayal, but the judge found the term wasn’t used in any legal way.
“We first note that, from our reading, Lubben’s testimony about how SnapChat works was fairly technical and, therefore, was the type of evidence that an expert might provide,” May wrote.
“Because Lubben effectively testified as an expert, it is hard for us to see much problem in calling her one.”
Also, West Side had sought to include a slide in a PowerPoint presentation to the jury – slide 33 – that said a person could live on a $120,000 return on investment of a $3 million award, but the McQuillens’ lawyer objected.
The trial judge had it taken down after a sidebar. The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling for two reasons.
“First, error was not preserved,” May wrote. “To meet the timeliness requirement, claims of errors during closing arguments must be urged not later than ‘the close of the argument in motion for mistrial made before submission to the jury.’
“Rather, it was raised for the first time in the defendants’ motion for new trial. This was too late to preserve an alleged error concerning closing argument.”
And the trial judge made no other prohibitions on discussing the time value of money, May said. Only slide 33 was precluded.
