Summary of Davis v. Maute: Big Case on the Introduction of Pictures of the Car at Trial
The relevance at trial of photographic evidence is determined by the trial court, guided by the appellate court. In car accident cases, this issue frequently comes up. Are car accident photos admissible if the party seeking to admit that pictures has not provided expert testimony correlating the extent of damage to the vehicles to the injuries sustained in the crash? This door swings both ways for plaintiffs and defendants. This case is the one that Maryland court in Mason v. Lynch considered and rejected.The Facts of Davis v. Maute
Delaware went the other way on this issue and the seminal Delaware case on this issue is instructive. In this case, the Plaintiff, Rosetta Davis suffered personal injuries when a car driven by the Defendant, Franz Maute, ran a red light and collided with Plaintiff's car. Ms. Davis alleged that she sustained serious personal injuries as a result of the accident. While admitting responsibility for the crash, Ms. Maute's attorneys argued that Ms. Davis did not suffer a significant injury.
At the trial on damages, Davis presented expert medical testimony that the collision caused Davis to twist suddenly and that this motion caused permanent injuries to pPlaintiff's back, neck, and ribs. Davis also presented evidence that the pain caused by these injuries was impacting her day-to-day life.
The Defendant argued that Davis had only soft-tissue injuries from the car accident and that any further injury from the crash was due to a preexisting arthritic condition unrelated to the auto accident. To support the argument that the injuries were minor, Defendant's lawyer introduced pictures of the vehicles in the auto accident which showed minimal damage.
The jury returned an award of $8,766 to the plaintiff, including $6,207 in stipulated medical expenses. Believing that the jury did not adequately account for the permanency of Davis' injuries, the trial court granted Davis' motion for additur and awarded Davis a total of $12,000.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the pictures of the car were unduly prejudicial to the Plaintiff's case and should not have been admitted into evidence.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's lawyer in a personal injury case may not contend that the damage to the vehicle in a car accident correlates to the extent of the damage to the cars unless the defendant proffers expert testimony on the issue of the correlation.
In the absence of such testimony, defendant's personal injury lawyer cannot argue to the jury that minimal property damage to a plaintiff's car in an auto accident translates into minimal personal injuries to the plaintiff amounts to speculation.
Specifically, the court found that "absent such expert testimony, any inference by the jury that minimal damage to the plaintiff's car translates into minimal personal injuries to the plaintiff would necessarily amount to unguided speculation."
This rule takes discretion out of the judge's hands as to whether to admit the photographs of the property damage to the parties vehicle in an auto accident. The Plaintiff in Mason v. Lynch, 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 (2005) sought to advance this argument in a Prince George's County case, urging the Maryland Court of Appeals to adopt this rule. The court declined to adopt the Delaware ruleMore Information on the Admissibility of Car Accident Photos at Trial
- The Opinion in Davis v. Maute
- Delaware case that arguably narrows Davis
- Motion in Limine to Exclude Photographs of Auto Accident
- Other States on Admitting Accident Pictures in Evidence
- Maryland Law Update
- Maryland Personal Injury Attorney Help Center