# Brenman v. Demello > Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 30, 2007 · 191 N.J. 18 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756745 ## Case - **Full name:** Rena Brenman and Mitchell D. Brenman, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Michael Demello and Stephanie Demello, Defendants-Appellants, and Abc Company, (Said Name Being Fictitious and Unknown), Defendant - **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey - **Decided:** May 30, 2007 - **Citations:** 191 N.J. 18; 921 A.2d 1110; 2007 N.J. LEXIS 594 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Wallace - **Judges:** Zazzali, Lavecchia, Albin, Rivera-Soto, Hoens, Wallace - **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756745 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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]uri… - 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 - holding that expert testimony is not necessary to prove the relationship between an accident and the extent of any resulting injuries ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756745. Public record. Not legal advice.