Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court held that defense counsel may not argue, without competent expert testimony, that the extent of automobile damage correlates with the severity of personal injuries. The court also held that photographs depicting vehicle damage require a specific limiting instruction when admitted for a potentially valid purpose. Because the improper argument and admission of the photographs were not adequately cured, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defense counsel may argue, directly or by implication and without expert testimony, that minor automobile damage indicates minor personal injuries.
- Whether photographs showing minor damage to the plaintiff's vehicle are admissible in a damages-only personal injury trial when they may invite an unsupported inference that the plaintiff could not have suffered serious injuries.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give specific curative and limiting instructions and by denying a new trial.
- Whether additur cured the prejudice caused by the improper argument and admission of the photographs.
Holdings
- In a personal injury case, counsel may not directly or indirectly argue that the seriousness of occupants' injuries correlates with the extent of automobile damage unless supported by competent expert testimony.
- Photographs of a plaintiff's vehicle are not categorically inadmissible, but their admissibility depends on whether their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury will draw the impermissible minimal-damage/minimal-injury inference.
- When photographs of vehicle damage are admitted in these circumstances, the trial court must immediately instruct the jury that there is no evidence of a correlation between the damage shown and the severity of the plaintiff's personal injuries.
- The repeated improper argument, admission of the photographs without a proper limiting instruction, and failure to provide curative instructions were cumulatively prejudicial, constituted an abuse of discretion, and required a new trial on damages.
Key quotations
“We hold that, in general, counsel may not argue that there is a correlation between the extent of the damage to the automobiles in an accident and the extent of the occupants' personal injuries caused by the accident in the absence of expert testimony on the issue.” (770 A.2d at 38)
“Counsel may not argue by implication what counsel may not argue directly.” (770 A.2d at 41)
“Specifically, the court should have immediately instructed the jury that there is no evidence of a correlation between the damage shown in the photographs and the severity of Davis' personal injuries.” (770 A.2d at 42)
“This was not harmless error and was not cured by additur.” (770 A.2d at 43)
Factual background
On August 27, 1997, a car driven by Franz Maute ran a red light and struck the rear passenger side of Rosetta Davis's car. Maute conceded liability, but the parties disputed whether and to what extent the accident caused Davis's claimed permanent soft-tissue injuries. Davis presented medical and lay testimony supporting serious injuries, while Maute presented expert testimony attributing the limited severity of the injuries and some symptoms to pre-existing arthritis. During the damages trial, Maute's counsel repeatedly characterized the accident as a "fender-bender," and the court admitted photographs showing apparently minor vehicle damage without a specific limiting instruction.
Procedural history
Maute conceded liability for the automobile accident, so the parties tried only the extent of Davis's accident-related injuries and damages. The jury awarded Davis $8,766, including $6,207 in stipulated medical expenses. The Superior Court granted additur to $12,000 but denied Davis's request for a new trial. The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Superior Court judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including a new trial on damages.