ILNews

DTCI: Photo of car admissible to show lack of injury

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Hehner-ButzOn Aug. 10, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion that addressed for the first time the issue of whether a photograph of vehicle damage is relevant and admissible to assist a jury in determining the extent of bodily injury in a trial arising from a motor vehicle accident. In Flores v. Guiterrez, No. 45A04-1101-CT-28, 2011 WL 3501865 (Ind. App. Aug. 10, 2011), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s admission of a photograph of the plaintiff’s vehicle following the motor vehicle accident at issue, in which he was rear-ended by the defendant. The photograph depicted a vehicle with “little to no damage.” Despite the fact that liability was already determined, the jury awarded the plaintiff zero damages.  

On appeal, the plaintiff claimed the photograph was inadmissible on the grounds that it was irrelevant to any determination of his bodily injury. The court and parties agreed there is no Indiana authority on this issue so the court looked to other jurisdictions for support. While the court noted some jurisdictions bar the admission of photographs of property damage for purposes of establishing injury absent expert testimony showing a causal link, the Court of Appeals sided with those jurisdictions that allow photographs of property damage to show injury even with no expert testimony. Those other jurisdictions (and the Court of Appeals of Indiana) believe the relationship between the force of impact, the resultant injury, and the extent of the relationship is a jury issue, and the jury should be permitted to view photographs of vehicles involved in an accident. The court ultimately agreed with the trial court and held that the damage (or lack thereof) to the plaintiff’s vehicle had some tendency to prove or disprove facts relating to his personal injury claim. In outlining its reasoning the court stated:

“Here, the trial court admitted Exhibit D [the photograph of the automobile] on the basis that it was properly authenticated and relevant to Flores’s [the Plaintiff’s] personal injury claim arising out of a car accident. Flores [the Plaintiff] admitted during his testimony that Exhibit D truly and accurately depicted his vehicle as a result of the impact. Under Indiana Evidence Rule 401, relevant evidence is ‘evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’ (Emphasis supplied). In admitting Exhibit D, the trial court concluded that the damage or lack thereof, to Flores’s vehicle had some tendency to prove or disprove facts relating to his personal injury claim. We agree. Flores presented no expert testimony to suggest that, under these facts, no such tendency existed. To the contrary, his own expert, Dr. Jones, testified that he had inquired into vehicle damage when assessing Flores’s condition immediately following the accident. While additional testimony by Dr. Jones suggested that a direct relationship between damage and injury does not always exist, he did not indicate that such a relationship was nonexistent under these circumstances.” Flores v. Guiterrez, No. 45A04-1101-CT-28, 2011 WL 3501865, at 5 (footnote omitted).

The Court of Appeals also noted in a footnote that while “the link at issue here is between minimal property damage and minimal injury, this commonsense relationship may also be relevant to link significant property damage and serious injury.” Id. n.3.

Pursuant to this opinion, a photograph of vehicle damage is therefore likely to be considered relevant and admissible to the issue of bodily injury in a personal injury action, unless the party seeking to exclude the photograph has expert testimony tending to show the lack of a direct relationship between the damage and the injury.•

__________

Jim Hehner and Ashley Arthur Butz practice with the law firm of Hehner & Associates, LLC in Indianapolis. Mr. Hehner is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT