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.   

 

 

Traffic Citation Ruled Admissible in Federal Court Action by Federal Magistrate Judge

In the Eastern District Federal Court case of Malantonio v. Boyle, 2017 WL 633997 (E.D.Pa. 2017 Hart, M.J.), a federal magistrate judge denied a defendant's motion in limine to preclude the mention of a traffic citation arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

While the court agreed with the defense that such evidence would be inadmissible in a state court action, the federal court found that, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the citation was admissible. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6142(a).

In this regard, the court more specifically found that the traffic citation would not be excluded as hearsay evidence and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect.  The court also noted that the defendant would have an opportunity at trial to testify regarding the circumstances surrounding his guilty plea to the citation as well as to explain his actions that led to him being given a traffic citation in the first place.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  Course Materials from 2017 PAAJ Auto Law Update CLE.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules that Insomnia is Not a Serious Injury in Limited Tort Context

In the case of Vetter v. Miller, 2017 Pa. Super. 64 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2017) (Ransom, J., Ford Elliot, P.J.E., Stephens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Ransom, J.), the court affirmed the trial court's decision that a Plaintiff's insomnia did not amount to a serious impairment of a body function for a limited tort Plaintiff under the facts presented.  

This decision was also notable for the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s analysis of what types of motor vehicle accident related criminal charges may be admissible in a subsequent civil case.   The court noted that all motor vehicle code violations are not of equal gravity.  

For example, the court noted that, while evidence of a conviction of driving while intoxicated may be admissible if supported by ample evidence of intoxication, a guilty plea of driving with a suspended license was only a summary offense that should not have been admitted in the court below.

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

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