ILNews

COA allows for admission of vehicle photo in personal injury action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time the issue of whether a photograph admitted at trial showing little damage to a truck involved in an accident is inadmissible on the grounds that it’s irrelevant to any determination of bodily injury.

Raymond Flores challenged the trial court’s determination that he is entitled to no damages arising out of his car accident with Juan Rocha Gutierrez, who hit Flores’ stopped vehicle. After the accident, Flores was able to drive his vehicle home.

Flores went to his doctor the next day to seek care for back and neck pain. He hurt his back in 1999 as the result of another car accident and was diagnosed with arthritis, scoliosis, and degenerative disc disease. His treatment for injuries from that accident ended in 2001. While he was receiving treatment for the latest car accident, Flores fell on some ice at his workplace and filed a workers’ compensation claim. He never mentioned the fall to his doctor.

Default judgment regarding liability was entered against Gutierrez, who was unable to be located, but Flores had to prove proximate cause, injury, and damages. The trial court did not grant Flores’ request to keep defense Exhibit D, a photograph of his car after the accident showing little or no damage to it, or any references to his workers’ compensation claim from being mentioned at trial. The jury awarded Flores zero damages.

In Raymond Flores v. Juan P. Rocha Gutierrez, No. 45A04-1101-CT-28, Flores challenged the admission of the photograph of his truck. He pointed to Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36, 40 (Del. 2001), to support his argument that the photograph was irrelevant to determining his injuries. But Davis – which reversed admission of photographs of property damage for purposes of establishing injury and held that expert testimony must be included to admit the photographs – has since been limited to its facts, wrote Judge Cale Bradford. A later case out of Delaware said Davis shouldn’t be construed broadly to require expert testimony in every case in order for jurors to be allowed to see photographs of cars in accidents, and other jurisdictions have rejected the Davis reasoning.

The trial court admitted the photograph of Flores’ car because it was relevant to his personal injury claim, and it concluded that the damage, or lack thereof, to his car had some tendency to prove or disprove facts relating to his personal injury claim. Even Flores’ physician observed the commonsense relationship between property damage and personal injury, the judge noted.

The COA also rejected Flores’ argument that the photo was more prejudicial than probative and should have been excluded under Ind. Evidence Rule 403. The court also upheld the finding of zero damages, noting that the evidence showed Flores had multiple pre-existing back problems with multiple causes. The appellate court said the doctor’s diagnosis that some of Flores’ issues were related to the accident was attributable to an incomplete record and that Flores’ had credibility problems.

The judges also affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow references to Flores’ 2010 fall at work, his workers’ compensation claim, and the admission of certain medical records.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT