Vehicle Damages Photos From Accident Were Not Authenticated and, Therefore, Not Allowed

In the case of Moore v. Nordland, June Term, 2020, No. 01679 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 19, 2024 Turner, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion asking the Superior Court to affirm the trial court Order denying the Defendant’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief following a motor vehicle accident.

A primary issue in this case raised by the Plaintiff was whether the court erred in precluding photographs of the vehicle that were involved in the accident.

According to the Opinion, during cross-examination, both Plaintiffs confirmed that they could not recall or remember if the photographs of the vehicles presented to them fairly and accurately depicted the condition of the vehicles following the accident. Accordingly, the court found that, based upon the testimony of the Plaintiff, the Defendant was unable to authenticate the photographs.

During the direct examination of the Defendant, defense counsel again attempted to authenticate the photographs. However, when asked whether the photographs depicted the way to the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the accident, the Defendant testified, “Yes, I mean, there’s nothing different from what I’m seeing in these pictures compared to what I saw there on Cheltenham Avenue,” where the accident happened. The Defendant also testified that the photograph of the Plaintiffs’ vehicle “looks like the exact same vehicle that I was in the accident with that afternoon–evening.”

The trial court judge wrote in her Opinion that the Defendant failed to testify that the photographs fairly and accurately depicted the vehicles following the accident. Rather, the Defendant only testified that the vehicle in the photograph was the same vehicle he was in the accident with. The court noted that the Defendant was unable to confirm that the photographs fairly and accurately depicted the damage, or lack of damage, to the vehicles following the accident.

Based upon the testimony of all of the parties, the court found that the photographs were not properly authenticated and, as such, did not allow the Defendant to admit the photographs into evidence or to publish them to the jury.

In so ruling, the court cited to “Pa. R.E. 901(a), which pertains to authentication of evidence. The court additionally cited to the case of Com. v. Loughnane, 128 A.2d 806, 814 (Pa. 2015), for the proposition that a photograph “may be authenticated by testimony from a person who has sufficient knowledge that the photograph fairly and accurately reflects what the proponent is purporting the photograph to reflect.” 

Here, the court noted that, while photographs of vehicles were certainly relevant, and may be admissible, in this case, the Defendant failed to properly authenticate the photographs. The court additionally noted that, “most importantly,” there was no testimony as to who took the photographs, when the photographs were taken, and whether any repair work had been done to the cars following the accident but before the photos were taken.

Also of note with regards to this decision, the court found that the Plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the accident, their injuries, and the residual impact of the injuries on the injured Plaintiff’s life, along with the Plaintiff’s expert testimony, provided the jury with sufficient testimony and evidence to make a determination as to whether or not the limited tort Plaintiffs’ injuries were “serious” such that the pierced the limited tort threshold.

Here, there is evidence that the Plaintiffs sustained soft tissue injuries to her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine regions along with disc protrusions and herniations in her neck and mid-back and low back. The court also noted that the Plaintiffs testified in detail as how the injuries impacted their everyday lives.

Accordingly, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the Defendants’ Motion for Post-Trial Relief in this regard.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 16, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Victor Moragriega on www.pexels.com.

Court Precludes Admissibility of Exemplar Pictures of a Surgery That Plaintiff Did Not Even Have

In the case of Crump v. Goldsleger, Aug. Term, No. 01434 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 4, 2023 Powell, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion addressing various issues following a motor vehicle accident trial in which a defense verdict was entered.

Of note was the trial court’s conclusion that it properly denied Plaintiff’s request to admit evidence of photographs that did not pertain to any of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The court found that such evidence was not relevant or probative on the issues presented.

More specifically, in this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s credibility had been called into question as the Plaintiff attempted to introduce into evidence pictures of a knee surgery that were not pictures of the Plaintiff’s knee. It was also noted that the pictures did not depicted a type of surgery that was completed on the Plaintiff.

The court noted that, since the photographs of the knee that the Plaintiff sought to introduce were not actually pictures of the Plaintiff’s knee, the court found that the evidence was irrelevant in that any minimal probative value of the picture was severely outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  The court noted that the only purpose of the photos appeared to be to shock the jury and to attempt to garner sympathy for the Plaintiff.

The court also asserted in its Rule 1925 Opinion that it had properly excluded the expert testimony of the Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Lance Yarus, where the expert had noted a "suspected" knee injury based upon a tele-medicine meeting with the Plaintiff.   The court found that such testimony did not meet the reasonable degree of medical certainty standard.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).

Court Addresses Admissibility of Photographs at Trial

In the case of Saahir v. Albert Einstein Med. Center, December Term 2017, No. 03298, (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 25, 2022 Foglietta J.), the court found that photographs documenting a decedent’s painful injuries while the decedent was in the hospital were relevant to the Plaintiff’s wrongful death and survival claims. The court, in this Rule 1925 Opinion, recommended affirmance of its ruling in favor of the admission of the photographs at trial.

In its Opinion, the court noted that the Defendant’s argument regarding a discrepancy in the date of the photos went to the weight of such evidence and not the admissibility of the evidence.

The court in its Opinion provides a nice summary of the law of admissibility at trial in this regard, including with respect to whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs any probative value of the evidence.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 29, 2022).