Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the trial justice erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after improperly allowing a traffic-light and trip-bar demonstration during a jury view. The court concluded that the demonstration generated evidence outside the courtroom and that the view lacked adequate procedural safeguards, including appropriate instructions and a reliable record. The court vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial justice erred by denying Gu's motion for a new trial after considering information obtained during the jury view and trip-bar demonstration as evidence.
- Whether the jury view was conducted improperly because the jury was not instructed beforehand that the view was not evidence or not to discuss the case, and because communications and an evidentiary demonstration occurred off the record.
- Whether Gu's objection to the jury-view errors was waived because it was not made contemporaneously.
Holdings
- A jury view is intended only to help the court and jury understand evidence presented at trial; it is not itself evidence. The trial justice therefore erred by relying on the trip-bar demonstration and other information obtained during the view when denying the motion for a new trial.
- The jury-view procedures constituted reversible error requiring a new trial because the record did not establish that all counsel and jurors were present and able to observe the demonstration, the events were not recorded, communications occurred during the view, and the jury was not instructed before the view that the view was not evidence or that jurors could not discuss the case.
- Gu's challenge was not barred by the raise-or-waive rule because the trial justice acknowledged that Gu's counsel may have been unaware that the demonstration and other significant events had occurred during the view.
Key quotations
“It is “well settled under Rhode Island law that the object of a view is not to obtain evidence but merely to enable the court and the jury better to understand the evidence when it is submitted.”” (38 A.3d at 1100)
“We are of the opinion that this was error and that a new trial should have been granted.” (38 A.3d at 1101)
“The trial justice’s later instruction that “[t]he view itself isn’t evidence” cannot negate the series of errors that pervaded the view.” (38 A.3d at 1102)
“We are of the opinion that the proper prophylaxes meant to safeguard the integrity of the view were absent in this case, to the extent that a new trial is required.” (38 A.3d at 1102)
Factual background
A RIPTA bus driven by Edmund E. Hathaway struck Yi Gu while she was crossing North Main Street in Providence near the entrance to the East Side bus tunnel. Gu alleged that Hathaway negligently struck her and improperly delayed moving the bus from her leg. At trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence about the traffic signal, Gu's location in the crosswalk, and whether Hathaway saw her. After the evidence closed, the jury viewed the accident scene, during which a RIPTA vehicle demonstrated how a trip bar activated the traffic signal; the demonstration and related events were not transcribed and were not introduced as evidence at trial.
Procedural history
Yi Gu sued the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority and its bus driver, Edmund E. Hathaway, for negligence and gross negligence arising from a bus-pedestrian collision. After a six-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendants. The trial justice denied Gu's motion for a new trial and subsequent motion for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial because of errors in the conduct of the jury view.
Remand instructions
Vacate the Superior Court judgment and remand for a new trial.