explaining that photographs are admissible if they are relevant, their probative value is not outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, and they are properly authenticated as a substantially accurate representation of what they depict
How later courts described this case
- explaining that photographs are admissible if they are relevant, their probative value is not outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, and they are properly authenticated as a substantially accurate representation of what they depict
- stating, “[I]n most cases, there is a relationship between the force of impact and the resultant injury, and the extent of that relationship remains in the province of the factfinder.”
- rejecting Davis because “there is a relationship between the force of impact and the resultant injury, and the extent of that relationship remains in the province of the factfinder;” expert testimony addressed the weight to give the photos, not their admissibility; and “[j]uries are entitled to infer that which resides squarely in the center of everyday knowledge: the certainty of proportion, and the resulting recognition that slight force most often results in slight injury, and great force most often is accompanied by great injury”
- rejecting the holding in Davis and concluding that expert testimony is not required when a party seeks to admit into evidence photographs of a vehicle involved in a car accident when the extent of the plaintiffs injuries are at issue
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice ALBIN,
concurring.
I concur with most of the majority’s analysis, though I do find the admissibility of the photographs to be a close issue. Because I believe that lay testimony describing the force of impact and personal injury is permissible, photographs corroborating that testimony by depicting vehicular damage must be admissible too. I disagree with the majority that there is “certainty of proportion” in relation to force of impact and personal injury. See ante at 32, 921 A.2d at 1119. Based on its common knowledge and experience, and depending on the condition of the victim and all of the surrounding circumstances, a jury may infer that a slight impact *37 in a motor vehicle accident generally results in a slight injury. To the extent that the photograph corroborates the nature of the impact, the photograph has probative value. On the other hand, with or without a photograph, the jury is not required to draw what may seem a natural inference — slight impact equals slight injury — if it is inconsistent with the available evidence.
To accept plaintiffs argument that the admissibility of a photograph is conditioned on expert testimony explaining how biomechanical forces caused personal injury in a motor vehicle crash would likewise require expert testimony in every motor vehicle accident involving personal injury to prove causation, even without a photograph. Because I cannot accept that proposition, I concur with the majority.