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 WALLACE, JR.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
To be sure, it is common nature for a fact-finder to conclude from a photograph depicting minor vehicle damage that the resulting injuries were also minor. However, that inclination should not influence the admissibility of the photographs. I agree with the Appellate Division that “photographs depicting slight vehicular damage, although conceivably serving other valid purposes, simply do not support, without corroborative expert proof, the inference that the accident could not have caused the serious injury of which a plaintiff complains.” Brenman v. Demello, 383 N.J.Super. 521, 533 , 892 A.2d 741 (App.Div.2006).
In this case, the issue was causation of plaintiffs injuries. Because the parties failed to present expert proof demonstrating that the slight damage to the vehicle could not have caused plaintiffs serious injuries, the photographs should not have been admitted without restrictions on their use. In my view, the Appellate Division struck the proper balance in holding that:
photographic evidence is neither automatically admissible nor excludable, but rather subject to the sound exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Whether an expert foundation is required depends, of course, on the particular issue in the case *38 to which the photographic evidence relates. Here, that issue was causation and because no expert proof of correlation was produced, we hold that the introduction of the photographs without restriction on their use and the use actually made of them by the defense constitute reversible error.
[Id. at 537-38, 892 A.2d 741 .]
I would affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division.
For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS — 5.
For concurrence — Justice ALBIN — 1.
For affirmance — Justice WALLACE — 1.