R. STAN BAKER, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Trial Exhibits, (doc. 52), Defendant's Motion in Limine, (doc. 56), and Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits, (doc. 57). The Court held a hearing on these pleadings, as well as other pretrial evidentiary matters, on August 10, 2016. At that hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint filing regarding their remaining motions and objections, which the parties submitted on August 31, 2016. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiff has
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Plaintiff
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Plaintiff does not oppose these portions of Defendant's Motion in Limine, (doc. 70, p. 7). Accordingly, the Court
Defendant argues that the Court should exclude testimony concerning conversations between Plaintiff and her medical care providers and treating physicians. (Doc. 56, p. 2.) Specifically, Defendant argues that the Court should prohibit Plaintiff from testifying about statements made by her medical care providers and treating physicians to Plaintiff, as that testimony would constitute hearsay. (
"`Hearsay' is a statement that: (1) the declarant makes outside of court; and (2) a party offers into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is not admissible during a trial unless specifically excepted by statute or rule.
Here, Plaintiff seeks to testify about statements made by her health care providers. Though Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Evidence 803
However, to the extent that Plaintiff intends to testify about a health care provider's statement to her to explain her conduct following that statement, she would not be offering the statement for the truth of the matter asserted. Therefore, the statement would not be hearsay. However, at this stage, it is not clear how Plaintiff would need to explain her conduct, much less whether the probative value of such an explanation would outweigh any undue prejudice. Should the need arise at trial, Plaintiff's counsel may address the Court and seek permission to offer the health care provider's statement to explain Plaintiff's subsequent conduct. Plaintiff's counsel must seek such permission before eliciting evidence of such a statement.
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Plaintiff does not oppose these portions of Defendant's Motion in Limine. Accordingly, the Court
Defendant argues that the Court should exclude any evidence that he received a traffic citation in connection with the automobile accident in question, the disposition of that traffic citation, and any documentary or testimonial evidence of that citation. (Doc. 56, p. 4.) Defendant contends that, absent evidence that he entered a guilty plea as to the traffic charge, this evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible. (
"Evidence of traffic citations is only admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding if the defendant voluntarily and knowingly entered a plea of guilty."
Here, though Plaintiff provides copies of Defendant's traffic citation and the disposition of that citation, neither document reveals whether Defendant entered a guilty plea in connection with that citation. Even assuming Defendant pled guilty to the traffic offense, this evidence would be irrelevant to any issue that the jury must determine, cumulative, and unfairly prejudicial, as Defendant admits liability in this case.
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Plaintiff does not oppose these portions of Defendant's Motion in Limine. Accordingly, the Court
Defendant argues that the Court should exclude evidence that he is a non-resident of Georgia. Defendant first maintains that this evidence is irrelevant. Defendant argues in the alternative that, even if evidence of his residency is relevant, the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Plaintiff, however, argues that evidence of Defendant's residency is admissible to demonstrate Defendant's lack of familiarity with the area in which the accident occurred. Plaintiff further argues that she may present evidence of his residency to acquaint the jury with the parties. Finally, Plaintiff argues that evidence of Defendant's residency is not so prejudicial as to outweigh its probative value.
"Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice . . . or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Here, Defendant's out-of-state residency is arguably probative as to whether he was familiar with the scene of the accident. However, Defendant's familiarity with the scene of the accident is not a fact of consequence in determining the action because Defendant admits liability in this case. Therefore, evidence of Defendant's out-of-state residency is inadmissible under Rule 401. Further, there is a danger that a Georgia jury would unfairly hold Plaintiff's out-of-state residency against him in determining the matters that are at issue. Accordingly, the Court
Defendant filed Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits, (doc. 57), which address several issues—many of which the parties have resolved. The Court addresses Defendant's remaining objections below.
Defendant again objects that evidence of his traffic citation and the disposition of that citation is inadmissible, while Plaintiff maintains that this evidence is necessary to establish that Defendant violated the law and should be held responsible for Plaintiff's injuries. For the reasons discussed in Section II D above, the Court
Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Exhibit 3—listed as "Annuity Mortality Table" arguing that there is no evidence of future lost wages or the need for future medical care and that, therefore, the annuity mortality table is irrelevant. Plaintiff argues that, because there is medical testimony and anticipated testimony from Plaintiff to establish that she has suffered neck and back pain consistently since the automobile accident, a jury could find that she will continue to suffer pain. Plaintiff argues that, should the jury make that finding, a mortality table is a reliable and acceptable tool by which a jury can calculate an award for future pain and suffering.
The parties agree that "[t]he issues which th[e] jury must determine are whether this motor vehicle accident caused [Plaintiff]'s injuries, and if so, the damages to which [Plaintiff] is entitled." (Doc. 68, p. 1.) Based upon the evidence presented thus far in the case, a jury could find that Defendant caused Plaintiff's injuries, that Plaintiff continues to suffer pain as a result of those injuries, and that she will suffer pain in the future. Accordingly, the jury could find that Plaintiff is entitled to damages for future pain and suffering. If the jury does so, the annuity mortality table would assist the jury in determining an appropriate award.
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Defendant has
Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, listed as "Avis Rental Car agreement," arguing that this document is irrelevant and an improper attempt to introduce evidence of a collateral source and insurance by Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's Avis Rental Car Agreement is relevant to show that Defendant was unfamiliar with the vehicle he was driving and the area where the collision occurred. For the reasons discussed in II F above, Defendant's familiarity with the accident scene is not a fact of consequence in this action, because Defendant admits liability. Therefore, evidence that Defendant rented the car that collided with Plaintiff's car is not relevant to whether the impact caused Plaintiff's injuries and if so, the damages to which Plaintiff is entitled. Additionally, for the reasons stated by Defendant, this evidence could unfairly prejudice Defendant. Accordingly, the Court
Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, listed as "Diagram of Accident Location," and Exhibit 13, listed as "Google Map of Accident Location" on the grounds of foundation, hearsay, that those documents assume facts not in evidence, and that those documents are not to scale and have not been authenticated. Plaintiff argues that the Court should allow her to present both of these documents to provide the context of the accident scene to the jury. Provided Plaintiff properly authenticates Exhibits 12 and 13, these documents are admissible for the limited purpose of describing the accident scene.
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Defendant has
Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Exhibit 49, listed as "Rangel Property Damage Appraisal" on the grounds that this evidence is irrelevant, due to Plaintiff's failure to plead a claim for property damages. Defendant also objects that Plaintiff has improperly attempted to introduce evidence of a collateral source and insurance and evidence of subsequent remedial measures on repairs through this document. Plaintiff avers that her property damage appraisal will assist the jury in determining the force of impact and, as a result, the severity and extent of her injuries.
While Plaintiff does not assert a claim for property damage to her vehicle in this case, this evidence makes it more probable that Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the car accident.
However, the Court
As stated in the parties' Joint Statement, Defendant has withdrawn his objections as to Exhibits 50 and 51. As to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit 53, listed as "Statement of Paul Anderson," Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw this Exhibit. (Doc. 70, p. 6.) Therefore, the Court
Finally, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Exhibit 54, listed as "Tammy Rangel Medical Bills Summary." Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to testify as to a summary of her medical bills to assist the jury in deliberations as to this issue. As discussed previously, the issues which the jury must determine in this case are the whether Defendant caused Plaintiff's injuries, and if so, the damages to which Plaintiff is entitled. Provided Plaintiff properly authenticates the medical bills at issue, she may present this evidence to the jury to assist the jury in determining her damages.
For the reasons and in the manner set forth above the Court