Case Law » Civil Law
Evidence
Saxton v. Scully, 2011 WL 4377524 (Del.).
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment of the Superior Court in admitting photographs of the plaintiff's vehicle and in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. This personal injury case arose from an automobile collision between co-defendants' vehicles. Plaintiff alleged that her vehicle was impacted as a result of that collision, causing her injuries. The underlying decision allowing the photographs into evidence held that the photographs were admissible to assist the jury in determining the factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff's vehicle was struck as a result of the accident, and if it was struck, whether it was struck by defendant's vehicle or by construction debris being ejected from the defendant's vehicle. Further, the trial court found Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001) inapplicable to the facts of this case, as the use of the photographs was not an attempt to correlate severity of vehicle damage, or lack thereof, to the severity of bodily injury.
The underlying decision denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial held that the jury's determination as to liability and damages did not shock the court's conscience. As to liability, the court found the jury's verdict in favor of both co-defendants was supported by the conflicting evidence at trial regarding whether an impact occurred to plaintiff's vehicle. As to damages, the court found the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence at trial of plaintiff's pre-existing injury. It is important to note that the court was unable to determine whether the jury's decision was premised upon liability or damages, as the special verdict form combined the concepts of fault and causation into a single question: “Do you find the defendant...was negligent in a manner proximately causing injury to plaintiff...?”
Miller v. State Farm Ins. Co., 993 A.2d 1049 (Del. 2010)
In this case, plaintiff brought a suit against a 3rd party tortfeasor and his own insurance company for UIM benefits, for injuries suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff had received worker's compensation benefits for injuries suffered in the subject accident. The 3rd party tortfeasor settled with plaintiff and the worker's compensation carrier accepted a portion of that recovery in reimbursement of its lien. The trial proceeded only as to the UIM carrier. At trial, the Court allowed the evidence of satisfaction of the lien and payments made by plaintiff's worker's compensation carrier into evidence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the collateral source rule prohibited evidence of the fact that plaintiff received worker's compensation benefits. The collateral source rule states “a person deemed legally responsible to another cannot claim the benefit of the ability of the injured party to recover from a third party expenses related to the injury.” The Court reasoned that the evidence should be excluded based upon the prejudice to the jury in hearing that evidence and being reluctant to then award a plaintiff a “double recovery”.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Enrique, 2010 WL 3448534 (Del. Supr.).
In this case, the Supreme Court applied its holding in Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001) in affirming the trial court's admission into evidence of photographs depicting the Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff moved for admission of photographs of Plaintiff's vehicle to demonstrate to the jury that Plaintiff's knees hit the dash board as a result of the subject automobile accident. The sole issue for trial was damages. Defendant argued that the photographs should not be admitted because they did not challenge whether Plaintiff's knees hit the dashboard and that the only issue for trial was severity of damages, not whether Plaintiff's knees struck the dashboard. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision admitting the photographs for the purpose of supporting Plaintiff's burden to establish prima facie evidence for recovery as to all elements of her claim. The Court further held that the trial court's limiting instruction to the jury in considering the photographs was sufficient to cure any potential prejudice to the Defendant.
Murrey v. Shank, et. al., C.A. No. 07C-08-137 CLS (April 12, 2011).
Superior Court granted Defendant's Motion in Limine to exclude references to a 55mph speed limit at trial. Accident occurred when Defendant allegedly made a left turn in the path of Plaintiff's oncoming vehicle. Wilmington Police Officer investigated accident and, using vehicle skid marks, calculated that Plaintiff was traveling at approximately 45mph in a posted 25mph zone. Officer cited Plaintiff for driving at an unsafe speed in violation of 21 Del. C. § 4168(a) and Plaintiff pled guilty to the violation. Plaintiff intended to introduce evidence that the speed limit at the accident location may have been 55mph, not 25mph. In granting Defendant's motion to exclude such evidence, the Court found that the evidence was not relevant, as Plaintiff's guilty plea constituted a concession that 25mph was the correct speed limit at the location where the accident occurred.
Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36, Veasey, C.J. (Del. 2001).
This case involved a negligence action to recover for soft tissue back, neck, and rib injuries allegedly suffered in an automobile collision for which the defendant conceded liability. Defense counsel argued that the collision amounted to a "fender-bender" and argued for the admissibility of photographs of the damaged vehicle, both without the support of expert testimony, to minimize personal injury damages because the damage to the vehicle was minor. The Delaware Supreme Court held that absent expert testimony, both medical and biomechanical, correlating seriousness of injuries to seriousness of property damage, defense counsel's characterization of "fender-bender" was improper. Additionally, the Court held that the admission of photographs showing the degree of damage to a party's vehicle to support the degree of injury was also improper.
Eskin v. Carden, 842 A.2d 1222, Steele, J. (Del. 2004).
The Delaware Supreme Court considered the admissibility of biomechanical evidence and photographs in minor impact cases. The court addressed for the first time whether biomechanical expert testimony may be admitted in Delaware courts to address the relationship between the physical forces involved in an automobile accident and the cause and severity of an occupant's alleged injuries. The court held "that trial judges may admit qualified biomechanical expert testimony regarding the physical forces involved in automobile accidents and the effect on the human body those forces may produce where the relevance, reliability and trustworthiness of that testimony is established by the proffer and is not outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or misleading the jury."
