We cannot agree, as such evidence was relevant to the extent of the injuries sustained by plaintiffs. Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible and that which is not relevant is not admissible. Since the speed of Dorsett's vehicle when it struck plaintiffs' van bears on the issue of the severity of plaintiffs' injuries, this testimony was relevant and admissible. Nevertheless, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Therefore, we summarily reject this argument as unpersuasive.
Plaintiffs argue that the videotape lacked relevance and proved to be highly prejudicial.
Again, we must disagree. Under North Carolina law, videotapes are admissible both as substantive and illustrative evidence. This section does not prohibit a party from introducing a photograph or other pictorial representation solely for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of a witness. N. C. Gen. Stat. The videotape introduced in this case depicted plaintiffs engaging in various physical activities, which was probative of whether and to what extent plaintiffs were disabled by the injuries they sustained in the automobile accident.