Negligence – Trial court didn’t err in admitting video of automobile accident

Where a woman who was awarded no damages following an automobile accident argued the trial court wrongly admitted a video showing the accident, her argument was rejected. She failed to demonstrate that the video was unfairly prejudicial, that the prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value and that reasonable jurists could not have reached a different conclusion.

Background

Ernestine M. Burton sued John Doe, an unidentified driver, for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in an accident. Because the driver was never identified, Burton sued the driver as a “John Doe” and served the uninsured motorist insurance carrier under Code § 38.2-2206(E). Doe admitted liability and the case proceeded to a jury trial solely on the issue of damages, and the jury found for Doe on the issue of damages.

Analysis

Burton argues, “The trial court committed reversible error when it denied the Appellant’s Motion in Limine and allowed the introduction of an irrelevant video.” The court disagrees.

Here, the rear-facing video was relevant to the question of Burton’s potential damages. The video shows Doe’s collision with the side of the bus, including the force of impact, and was the only video admitted that showed the actual collision. Thus, the video helped contextualize the first video and also could have aided the jury in determining whether the collision injured Burton as she claimed.

Furthermore, the simple fact that the rear-facing video did not show a significant collision is not a reason for exclusion, even if the lack of a significant collision did prejudice Burton’s claim for damages. Burton fails to demonstrate that the video was unfairly prejudicial, that the prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value and that reasonable jurists could not have reached a different conclusion.

Burton correctly notes that “evidence of the absence of other injuries is not admissible in a negligence action when timely objection to it is made” because “[s]uch evidence introduces into the trial collateral issues, remote to the issue at trial, which would tend to distract, mislead, and confuse the jury.” However, evidence is frequently “admissible for one purpose yet inadmissible for another purpose.”

Doe assured the trial court before trial that the video would not be used to show absence of other injuries. When Doe played the video for the jury, Doe did not comment on the passengers’ reactions, or lack thereof, and Doe’s counsel did not comment on the passengers during his closing argument. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Doe to introduce the rear-facing video.

Verdict form

Burton further argues, “The trial court committed reversible error when it rejected the Plaintiff’s verdict form and accepted the Defendant’s verdict form, thus contradicting the agreed upon Jury Instructions 7 and 11.” The court disagrees.
The trial court instructed the jury on Doe’s admission of liability. The instructions given to the jury included Instruction No. 7: “The Defendant has admitted that he is liable for any injury the Plaintiff received from the accident. Therefore, the only issue that you have to decide is the amount of damages, if any, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover.” The jury was instructed that Burton was entitled to recover and that it was Burton’s burden to prove the amount of damages, if any.

Furthermore, the verdict form stated, “We, the jury, on the issues joined, find for Defendant.” The “issue[] joined” was the issue of damages, and the verdict form specifically allowed the jury to find for John Doe—or Burton—on that issue. Thus, the jury was properly instructed on the sole issue before it, and “[j]uries are presumed to follow their instructions.”
Affirmed.

Burton v. Doe, Record No. 0424-25-2, July 14, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Beales). From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Jenkins Jr.). Brenda L. Page (Alan F. Duckworth; Douglass A. A. James; Page Law Firm, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. E. Brandon Ferrell (Kerrigan O’Malley; Carter & Shands, PC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-295. 8 pp.

Full-Text Opinion