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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT