Background
Willie Bowman sued Roberto Duran-Madrigal and Evergreen Waste Services, LLC after Duran-Madrigal, driving for Evergreen, failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with Bowman’s pickup truck. Following a three-day personal-injury trial, a jury awarded Bowman $95,000.
Bowman had sought past and future lost wages from his concrete business. His economist estimated approximately $3.35 million to $4.66 million in lost income, but Bowman produced limited tax records and no contemporaneous bank statements, invoices, payroll records, wage forms, or similar business documents despite discovery requests and a production order. Bowman also moved to exclude his 2013 Pennsylvania convictions for forgery and theft by unlawful taking, which arose from his fraudulent transfer of real estate formerly owned by his deceased brother.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Bowman’s lost-wage claim and his economist’s testimony. Under Delaware law, an economic projection must have a reasonable factual foundation that permits a jury to estimate lost earnings with a fair degree of certainty. The limited records supporting Bowman’s multimillion-dollar projection contained specific signs of unreliability, including round-number figures, implausibly low material and labor costs, and an unfiled 2021 return prepared solely from figures Bowman supplied for “legal” reasons.
The Court also upheld the admission of Bowman’s convictions under Delaware Rule of Evidence 609(b). Although the convictions were more than ten years old, their probative value substantially outweighed their prejudicial effect because Bowman’s credibility was directly at issue and a defense neuropsychologist concluded that his cognitive-testing results strongly suggested deliberate selection of wrong answers. The Superior Court reduced the risk of prejudice by permitting only a generic reference to a Pennsylvania conviction for a crime of dishonesty, excluding the specific offenses, number of counts, and underlying facts, and offering a credibility-only limiting instruction.
Key Takeaways
- An expert’s future-lost-wage projection may be excluded when its assumptions lack a reliable factual foundation, even if weaknesses in other types of damages evidence might ordinarily present credibility questions for the jury.
- A business owner seeking substantial lost earnings should provide contemporaneous operational and financial records sufficient to support the claimed income and the expert’s calculations.
- A conviction more than ten years old may be admitted under Rule 609(b) when specific circumstances make it highly probative of credibility and the court carefully limits its prejudicial use.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the trial court’s gatekeeping role when a lost-earnings expert builds a large damages estimate on disputed or inadequately documented business income. A plaintiff cannot convert speculative financial assumptions into admissible damages evidence merely by presenting them through an economist.
It also illustrates how Delaware courts may admit an older dishonesty conviction when credibility bears directly on claimed injuries, while controlling prejudice through a generic description of the conviction and an appropriate limiting instruction.