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.

Objection to IME Doctor's Reliance Upon Vehicle Damage Photos in Opinion Overruled

In his recent Opinion in the case of Rodriguez v. Broad, No. 7250-CV-2012 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 5, 2016 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur L. Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denied a Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine seeking to preclude the testimony of the Defendant’s independent medical examination (IME) expert.  

According to the Opinion, the IME doctor issued a report indicating that he performed a history and physical examination of the Plaintiff and reviewed her medical records, radiographic studies, and photographs of the damages to the vehicles in rendering his opinion.  

The Plaintiff filed a Motion In Limine complaining that the IME doctor’s conclusions that the alleged injuries of the Plaintiff could not have been caused by the “minor trauma” of the motor vehicle collision was improperly based upon the expert’s review of photographs of vehicles after the collision.   The Plaintiff contended that the IME doctor was not an expert in the forces involved in vehicular crashes and that jurors should be able to make their own conclusions about damage to the vehicles as laypersons.   The Plaintiff contended that the IME doctor’s testimony should not be admissible as a result.  

Judge Zulick pointed out that the Plaintiff did not challenge the IME doctor’s qualifications as an expert orthopedic surgeon.  

The defense argued that the IME doctor properly considered the extent of damages to the vehicle as an aspect of his review of the Plaintiff’s complaints of orthopedic injuries in conjunction with taking the Plaintiff’s history, conducting a physical examination, and reviewing medical records and radiological studies.

Relying upon Pa. R.E. 703, which pertains to “Bases of Expert’s Opinion Testimony,” Judge Zulick denied the Plaintiff’s Motion and noted that the IME doctor’s use of photos of the vehicles is “one pillar of support of his opinion.”    Judge Zulick also noted that the IME doctor’s consideration of the photographs would be subject to cross-examination.   He additionally stated that the jury would be able to consider the damage to the vehicles themselves and use their own judgment as to whether or not they agreed with the IME doctor’s analysis as well.  

Overall, the court found that the Plaintiff’s objections to the IME doctor’s testimony went to the weight or value of the evidence, and not its admissibility.  Accordingly, these objections were denied.  

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County
 

Judge Zulick also addressed the Plaintiff’s objections that the IME doctor’s opinion were not definite.   The court noted that the IME doctor did state, at the conclusion of his report, that all his opinions were rendered within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  

In this regard, Judge Zulick also pointed to the well-settled rule that an IME doctor, as an expert for the defense “does not have to give his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty on question where the Plaintiff has the burden of proof.”   See Op. at 5 [numerous citations omitted].  

Based on the above reasoning, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine asserted against the IME doctor.  

 

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision by Judge Zulick in the case of Rodriguez may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

 

I send thanks to Attorney G. Christopher Parrish of the Bethlehem, PA office of Forry Ullman for bringing this case to my attention.