Court Rules That Defense Can Challenge Life Expectancy With Evidence of Plaintiff's Alcohol Abuse

In the case of Mackey v. Chipotle, No. 2:23-cv-00519-GAM (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2024 McHugh, J.), the court addressed the admissibility of a Plaintiff’s history of alcohol consumption as part of a defense to a Plaintiff’s future economic damages claims in a personal injury matter.

This case arose out of a trip and fall event.

Before the court was a motion by the Plaintiff to preclude any introduction of the Plaintiff’s history of alcohol consumption. The Plaintiff was asserting that this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s consumption was relevant to the Plaintiff’s projected life expectancy and that the evidence also provided an explanation for a subsequent fall unrelated to the Plaintiff’s physical limitations.

After reviewing the evidence presented and weighing the probative value against the prejudicial impact of that evidence as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the court concluded that the Plaintiff’s history of alcohol consumption was admissible as to the Plaintiff’s evidence of his life expectancy, but inadmissible for any other purpose. 

The court noted that, because life expectancy is the single most critical determinant of the estimated future damages, factors that may influence one’s life expectancy are “highly relevant” under Rules of Evidence.

While noting that evidence of alcohol consumption can create a risk of unfair prejudice under the Rules of Relevance, the court found that the evidence in this context did not substantially outweigh the highly probative value that the evidence of alcohol consumption had on the Plaintiff’s life expectancy and future damages. 

Accordingly, the evidence of Plaintiff’s alcohol consumption, which court to the Opinion was significant on a daily basis, was allowed to be introduced for the jury’s assessment in determining life expectancy. The court noted that it would provide a cautionary instruction with the intent of attempting to limit any possible prejudice.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “‘Well-Documented’ Medical Records of Alcohol Consumption Rates Maybe Considered For Life Expectancy Costs, Judge Finds.” By Riley Brennan. Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 18, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Clam Lo from www.pexels.com.

Trivial Defect Doctrine Found Not To Apply on Private Property

In the case of Ramsey v. Buchanan Auto Park, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01879-CCC (M.D. Pa. March 7, 2022 Connor, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part, post-trial motions in a slip and fall case after a verdict was entered in favor of the Plaintiff.

In one notable ruling, the court held that the trivial defect jury instructions that were developed in the context of public sidewalks was not applicable in the context of alleged defects on private property that allegedly injured business invitees.

The court noted that, in any event, this topic of liability was adequately covered by the jury instructions under which the jury was advised that, in order for the Plaintiff to recover, the property must have a condition which amounted to an unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff.

This decision is also notable in that the Court found that photographs of the area where the Plaintiff fell that were taken in 2017 were admissible even though there were slight variations in the conditions of the area since the Plaintiff's 2014 fall down event.  The Court noted that the photos were authenticated by a witness and that any variations were pointed out to the jury by the witness and in the jury instructions.  

The court otherwise noted that damages for lost wages awarded by a jury is not necessarily excessive merely because the award exceeds the amount of the worker’s compensation lien. The court noted that the lien is not a cap on the Plaintiff’s claim for past wage loss.

However, the court did find that the award entered by the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings was against the weight of the evidence where the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence in this regard.

The court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages after finding that the jury may have erroneously included non-economic damages in its future earnings award.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reid Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Chronic Marijuana Use Found Relevant to Claim for Future Earnings But Not on Life Expectancy

In the case of Koch v. Musser, No. 17-613 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Sept. 1, 2019 Linhardt, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to preclude a Defendant from offering any evidence of his chronic marijuana use in a civil litigation matter.

The court sustained the motion and precluded the evidence relative to the Plaintiff’s alleged use of marijuana on the date of the incident.

However, the court did find that the Plaintiff’s alleged chronic use of marijuana was relevant and admissible to the issues of his future earning capacity. The court noted that deposition testimony had established that the Plaintiff had lost employment and had difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment due to his chronic marijuana use. It is also noted that his chronic marijuana use could also bar him from certain future employment opportunities.

As such, the court found that the evidence of the Plaintiff’s marijuana use was sufficiently probative on the question of his future earnings so as to be admissible.

 However, the court held that it would exclude the evidence of the Plaintiff’s chronic marijuana use as a fact relevant to his future life expectancy unless expert medical testimony was provided in that regard.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 12, 2019).

Federal Judge Rules That Expert Testimony is Required to Assert That Smoking Impacts Life Expectancy

A number of notable civil litigation issues were reviewed by Chief District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the case of Kirkpatrick v. Geico, No. 2:17-cv-00236 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2019).  

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident after which the Plaintiff sued Geico on a UIM claim. The case proceeded to trial and the jury entered the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.  After the trial, Geico filed a Motion for Relief from a Judgment or, Alternatively, for a New Trial.  In the end, the court denied that motion.  

The carrier raised several issues in its post-trial motion.  One of the issues raised was an argument that the Plaintiffs’ substantial award for past and future earnings was not supported by the evidence. 

According to the Opinion the Plaintiff presented an expert in support of the claims as well as provided his own testimony regarding his work in his car restoration business, as well as the testimony of his wife who managed the finances for that business.  

Geico asserted that the evidence revealed that the Plaintiff admitted that he had not yet finished or sold any cars in that business by the time of the subject accident such that any award by the jury was not based upon reliable evidence and should therefore be overturned.

The carrier argued that the lack of any profits in the business prior to the accident foreclosed any finding by the jury that the accident diminished the Plaintiff’s future earning capacity.  

The court rejected this argument by indicating that the earnings of a Plaintiff subsequent to an injury, as compared with his or her earnings at the time of the injury, are merely evidence, and not conclusive evidence, as to whether the Plaintiff’s earning capacity as been diminished by the accident.  

In his Opinion, Western District Federal Court Judge Hornak emphasized that damages for loss of earning capacity arise out of an impairment of that capacity, and not out of loss of earnings.   The court emphasized that the determination of whether there was a loss of earning capacity requires the jury to ask whether there was a loss of earning power, and of the ability to earn money.  

Stated otherwise, the question is whether the economic horizons of the injured party have been shortened because of the injuries resulting from the accident.    The court emphasized that the evidence presented at trial indicated that to his injuries, the Plaintiff was unable to work in the same capacity as he had prior to the accident.  

More specifically, the Plaintiff asserted that his ability to perform his work at the same pace that he performed prior to the accident was reduced by half due to his injuries.  He additionally testified that his inability to work to the same capacity as he did prior to the accident caused him to have less money in the business which prevented him from buying additional cars to restore.  

Overall, the court found that the jury had sufficient evidence from which to conclude that the Plaintiff’s injuries from the accident led to a shorter economic horizon for the Plaintiff’s business.  

On another issue, the Defendant carrier objected to the court’s preclusion of any reference to the Plaintiff’s smoking habit on the grounds that such evidence was unfairly prejudicial.  The Defendant asserted that this ruling was in error because the jury should have been able to consider the Plaintiff’s smoking habits when they contemplated the Plaintiff’s personal habits and other factors in order to determine the Plaintiff’s life expectancy.  Geico argued that it is common knowledge that there is no safe level of smoking such that the jury did not need any medical testimony to properly incorporate that evidence into its deliberations.

The court rejected this argument and ruled that evidence of a smoking habit unaccompanied by any competent medical evidence that such habit reduces a particular individual’s life expectancy has little probative value.   See Op. at 10 [other citations omitted].  The court stated that, although it is common knowledge that smoking has adverse health consequences, “it is far from common knowledge what impacts smoking a pack of cigarettes a week for an unknown period of time would have on [this particular Plaintiff’s] life expectancy.”  Id. 

Given that the UIM carrier Defendant had not presented any expert testimony on this issue of the Plaintiff’s smoking habit, the court found that the risk of both prejudice and confusion from such evidence substantially outweighed any probative value of the evidence found in the Plaintiff’s social history comment with regards to his smoking to his own doctor.   As such, the court felt that it did not err in precluding any reference to the Plaintiff’s smoking habits.  

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

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.  

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Provides Lesson on Preserving Objections Relative to Jury's Verdict

In the case of Stapas v. Giant Eagle, No. 44 WAP 2017 (Pa. Nov. 21, 2018) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the court considered whether the Defendant was required to object to the jury’s verdict prior to the time the jury was discharged in order to preserve its challenge to the verdict.  

In the end, the Court ruled that the defense had waived its objection by failing to lodge an appropriate objection to the jury's alleged improper inclusion of future lost wages in the verdict when no evidence had been presented at trial in support of such a claim.  As such, a $2.1 million dollar verdict in favor of the Plaintiff who had been injured as a result of a shooting on the Defendant's premises.

The Defendant had labeled its challenge as a claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence in its Post-Trial Motion.  The Court noted that this type of claim does not ripen until after the verdict and is based upon a challenge to a jury's consideration of competing evidence (here there was no evidence presented in favor of a future wage loss claim).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in this case that, where an objection to a jury’s verdict is premised upon trial errors which are capable of being corrected before the jury is discharged, those objections must be raised before that jury is discharged. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s Order awarding the Defendant a new trial on damages.  

Anyone wishing to review the Majority Opinion by Justice Mundy may click this LINK.  The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Dougherty can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.