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.

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).

Number of Recurring Auto Accident Litigation Issues Addressed in Federal Middle District Court Decision

In the case of Knecht v. Balanescu, No. 4:16-CV-00549 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2017 Mehalchick, Mag. J.), is notable for decisions by the court on many common Motion In Limine issues arising out of a motor vehicle accident litigation.   Such notable decisions include the following:

 

- 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.