Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed judgments for the plaintiffs in a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court held that it could not review the defendant’s challenges to rulings on a motion in limine because the relevant pretrial hearing was not recorded and the appellant did not provide an adequate substitute record under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 9(g).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court could review the appellant's challenges to the Superior Court's evidentiary rulings on the plaintiffs' motion in limine when the record contained no transcript or approved substitute record of the hearing and ruling.
- Whether the judgments entered after the jury trial should be affirmed in the absence of an adequate appellate record.
Holdings
- An appellant bears the responsibility of providing the portions of the trial record necessary to give the Supreme Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the alleged error occurred; without an adequate record, the court cannot review the challenged rulings.
- The judgments must be affirmed because the absence of an adequate record made it impossible to determine whether the Superior Court committed legal error or abused its discretion in ruling on the motion in limine.
Key quotations
“It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide this Court with a record of the trial proceedings that are relevant to the claims of error raised on appeal.” (873 A.2d at 305)
“In the absence of a record to review, it is impossible for this Court to discharge its appellate function and determine whether there was either an error of law or an abuse of discretion in any of the trial judge’s rulings on the plaintiffs’ motion in limine.” (873 A.2d at 305)
Factual background
The case arose from a motor vehicle accident involving Paula Seramone-Isaacs and Victoria Mells. The defense theory was that the collision involved only minimal impact and caused, at most, minimal muscle strain. The Superior Court excluded the defense biomechanical expert's testimony, limited the defense medical expert's testimony, excluded photographs of vehicle damage, and limited the defendant's testimony concerning minimal impact.
Procedural history
Victoria Mells and Rashida Berry brought a negligence action against Paula Seramone-Isaacs after a motor vehicle accident. Following a jury trial, the jury awarded Berry $25,000 and Larry Piper $1,000 for loss of consortium. Before trial, the Superior Court granted the plaintiffs' motion in limine, excluding or limiting proposed defense expert testimony, vehicle-damage photographs, and testimony concerning minimal impact. Seramone-Isaacs appealed, but did not provide a transcript or an approved substitute record of the hearing and ruling on the motion in limine.