Jury can see crash video in accident suit

Where a woman sued for injuries she suffered in a motor vehicle accident involving a tractor trailer, the defendant’s attempt to prevent the jury from seeing a 12-second-long video clip, apparently recorded from inside the truck’s cabin that shows the vehicles colliding, was denied. The evidence was relevant to the issue of resulting injuries and was not more prejudicial than probative.

Background

This case arises from a serious motor vehicle accident involving Yvette Norman and Julian J. Kaczor, who was operating a semitruck owned by Leonard’s Express Inc. The parties have filed several motions in limine that the court will address in turn.

Crash video

Leonard’s Express moves to exclude a 12-second-long video clip, apparently recorded from inside the semitruck’s cabin, that shows the vehicles colliding. The court finds that that evidence of the details of a motor vehicle accident are relevant to the issue of resulting injuries, and that this type of evidence is more probative than prejudicial. Finally, insofar as this video is the only non-testimonial evidence depicting, in real time, the accident at issue, it is not needlessly cumulative of eyewitness testimony describing the same.

But the audio heard in the video is inadmissible. When the accident occurs, Kaczor curses audibly. Even if that profane utterance provided some limited probative value on the issue of liability, it has no bearing on causation and damages. Any marginal probative value that an expletive may have is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice to Leonard’s Express.

911 call

Leonard’s Express moves to exclude a one-minute-long 911 telephone call made by Meghan Crjnak, an eyewitness to the crash. The court finds that the 911 call is relevant because the severity of the crash has the tendency to make it more probable that Norman sustained the injuries she now claims and to the degree that she alleges. But the court finds that any probative value of the 911 call audio is substantially outweighed by its risk of undue prejudice to Leonard’s Express.

PTSD

Norman asks the court to exclude evidence, suggestion, or speculation that she has post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, from experiencing Hurricane Katrina prior to the crash at issue in this case. However Dr. DeRight’s opinion was allegedly based on Norman’s statements to him, as reflected in his notes. Insofar as Norman contends that she never told Dr. DeRight that she had PTSD because of Hurricane Katrina — or that Dr. DeRight misinterpreted what she had said — that is not sufficient grounds to prevent Dr. DeRight from testifying on this issue.

Prior accidents

Norman asks the court to exclude evidence relating to three car accidents she was previously involved in, arguing that they are irrelevant and prejudicial to her case. Because Leonard’s Express has admitted liability, to be admissible, Norman’s prior accidents must bear on the issues of causation or damages. The court finds that the November 2018 and May 2019 accidents are irrelevant, but the October 2018 car crash is potentially relevant. But, to tie the October 2018 accident to this case, Leonard’s Express needed one of its medical experts to make that connection. Neither did, so defendant will not be permitted to suggest as much at trial.

Omnibus motion

Leonard’s Express complains that Norman did not disclose relevant pre-accident medical records. But discovery is closed and there are no outstanding motions to compel or extend Leonard’s Express’s expert disclosure deadlines. It will be prohibited from arguing or eliciting testimony suggesting that Norman withheld relevant pre-accident medical records in discovery, unless Norman admits to doing so.

Next, because the other occupants were positioned differently in the vehicle in which Norman was a passenger, the extent of their injuries is irrelevant to determining the existence and extent of Norman’s injuries and will be excluded. And any post-accident altercation that may have taken place between Norman’s son and Kaczor is irrelevant to the issues of causation and damages and may not be mentioned at trial.

Also Norman’s religious affiliation is irrelevant to the issues of causation and damages and so it may not be mentioned at trial. But to the extent that Norman’s level of participation in various life activities — including religious ones—may have been affected by the accident, that participation, and whether her activity level has been affected, is relevant to the issue of the existence and extent of her injuries. Finally the court will not exclude Stephanie Melancon’s deposition testimony based on genuine and justifiable confusion about her employer’s correct corporate name.

Norman v. Leonard’s Express Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-00096, May 18, 2023. WDVA at Roanoke (Cullen). VLW 023-3-268. 20 pp.