Maryland Accident Lawyer Analysis of
Mason v. Lynch, 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 (2005)
Background
There has long been argument among
personal injury attorneys in Maryland and around the country as
to the circumstances under which photographs of the vehicles involved
in a car accident may be admitted at trial. From the perspective
of the Maryland attorney representing personal injury victims,
the answer is that it depends. Certainly, in most car accident
cases our lawyers handle, the property damage is such that we
are seeking to admit the damages to the vehicles to underscore
the violence of the accident so that the jury might appreciate
why the injuries were what they were and, even more importantly,
the trauma of such a violent hit is a component of Plaintiff's
claim for pain and suffering. But our attorneys also handle cases
where the property damage is less significant if we believe the
Plaintiff has suffered a real injury.
In Davis
v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (2001), the Delaware Supreme Court
ruled in a landmark case on this issue that a parties in car accident
personal injury cases may not contend there is a correlation between
the damage to the vehicles in the car accident and the extent
the Plaintiff's injuries caused by the accident unless expert
testimony is proffered supporting the correlation. Accordingly,
a party seeking to introduce photographs may not rely on photographs
of the cars involved in an auto accident to indirectly accomplish
the same purpose. The Davis court decided that "absent
such expert testimony, any inference by the jury that minimal
damage to the plaintiffs car translates into minimal personal
injuries to the plaintiff would necessarily amount to unguided
speculation." In Mason v. Lynch, the Maryland Court
of Appeals weighed in on this issue.
Mason v. Lynch, 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 (2005)
In this case, the Plaintiff stopped
her car for traffic on the Woodrow Wilson bridge in Prince
George's County and was hit in the rear, a classic rear-end
accident. Plaintiff contended that she had a closed head injury,
cervical strain and a temporomandibular joint disorder. She sought
medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for her pain and
suffering. The trial court allowed admission of the photos of
plaintiff's vehicle and let the defendant offer the "common
sense" argument: how could these injuries have occurred given
this amount of damage to the vehicles? The jury then awarded no
money to the Plaintiff.
A split Maryland
Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial judge's has discretion
to allow into evidence photographs that allegedly illustrate the
inconsistencies between the Plaintiff's injuries in the car accident
and the property damage sustained by the vehicles involved even
in the absence of expert testimony that establishes a correlation
between property damage as illustrated in a photograph and the
Plaintiff's injuries. Writing on behalf of the majority, retired
Judge John C. Eldridge wrote that "It is ordinarily within
the discretion of the trial court to weigh the degree of relevance
against any unfair prejudice which might arise from the admission
of the photographs.... [accordingly], the trial court's ruling
on admissibility will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear
abuse of discretion." In so holding, the court considered
and then rejected the Davis v. Maute holding that required
expert testimony must first establish a causal link between the
damages to the vehicles and the injuries to one of the drivers
in order for photographs of the accident to become admissible.
The dissenting opinion written by Judge Irma S. Raker pointed
to the scientific literature that shows there is no positive correlation
between property damage and extend of injury, arguing that "[t]here
is no way that, based merely on the extent of property damage,
a fact finder could assess the injury of a party and particularly,
whether a party had a preexisting injury that was exacerbated
by the impact. A review of the scientific literature expresses
the view that there can be a strong inverse correlation between
injury levels and measurable vehicle crush, especially in low
speed, rear-impact collisions."
Take Home Message for Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
and Victims
Our lawyers have received a good
deal of local and national exposure
for getting exceptional verdicts in personal injury cases in Maryland
where the Plaintiff significant personal injury in the absence
of extensive (or even any) property damage. In every case where
there is not graphic property damage, Maryland lawyer defending
auto accident cases have vigorously attacked the credibility of
the plaintiff's personal injury claims of soft-tissue injury with
pictures of property damage. Our cases were no exception. In spite
of the our motions in limine
to exclude such photographs that argued logic similar to Davis
v. Maute, the defense attorneys were permitted to admit the
photographs.
Typically, the defense attorneys
display large blow-up photographs of the Plaintiff's car and argue
that the lack of visible damage means that the plaintiff could
not have been seriously hurt in the accident. (And have their
client testify that the impact was extremely minor) If there is
an objective finding, such as a herniated
disc, the defense attorneys argued that the condition was
preexisting or that the plaintiff's doctors were not properly
reading the diagnostic findings.
Our attorneys' response to this
defense lawyer's tactic is always the same. First, we warn the
jury in opening statements that they can expect to see the photographs
blown up and pointed to time and time again. This prepares the
jury for the evidence. More importantly, we do not run from the
photographs. Our lawyers admit that there was minimal property
damage. But instead of pointing endlessly to the literature that
demonstrates a lack of a correlation, literature that bores a
jury to tears and, while well-founded is counterintuitive to many
jurors, we point out sometimes extraordinary injuries sometimes
happen in ordinary accidents. While such an occurrence is rare,
our lawyers correctly explain it is often the rare cases that
make it to the jury (as any first year law student knows from
the remarkable cases that find their way into their textbooks).
From there, assuming the plaintiff is credible and has quality
medical evidence to support his/her case, there is an excellent
chance that a Maryland jury will award fair compensation for Plaintiff's
injuries.
Personal injury attorneys in Maryland
should also remember that Mason does not stand for the proposition
that pictures are automatically admitted into evidence under Maryland
Rule 5-701. Rather, it is up to the judge's discretion in
each individual case to determine whether the pictures would be
of assistance to the trier of fact. Accordingly, you should still
file a motion in limine to exclude photographs
of the property damage to the vehicles when appropriate.
Back to Maryland
Law Update
Back to Maryland
Personal Injury Attorney Help Center
