- There
was no intentional destruction of relevant documents to justify a finding of
spoliation.
- A human factors expert is not qualified to testify about accident reconstruction.
- Prior drunk driving tickets were excluded as unduly prejudicial where alcohol had nothing to do with the accident in question. However, other driving tickets were admissible as relevant to the negligent hiring claim.
- Defendant’s expert testimony concerning the effect of Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content, although not supported by other exigent evidence, was found to be sufficiently thorough to be admissible.
- Since the Plaintiff was seeking to recover for permanent injuries, evidence of prior drug abuse was found to be relevant on the issue of life expectancy.
- Evidence of the Plaintiff’s cell phone use and texting was sufficiently close to the accident as to be admissible.
- Plaintiff’s
traffic citations with respect to the accident were found to be admissible under the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
- Where
the Plaintiff is claiming injuries that are the same as he claimed in a prior dissimilar
accident, the prior accident is admissible as relevant to the issue of causation of those injuries without
regard to the similarity of the facts of the separate
accidents.
Anyone wishing to review a copy
of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James
M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith and the writer of the Drug and
Device Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.