Opinion ID: 2362237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unsubstantiated Correlation Between Damages and Injuries

Text: Davis contends that, where liability is conceded and the sole issue is the extent of the plaintiff's personal injuries attributable to the accident, a defendant may not describe or characterize the magnitude of the damage to the victim's automobile unless the defendant can produce expert testimony linking the magnitude of the automobile damage to the plaintiff's personal injuries. As a corollary to this rule, Davis also contends that a defendant may not introduce evidence of the damage to the plaintiff's car unless the evidence is relevant for some purpose other than supporting this improper inference. We address, in turn, each of Davis' contentions. As a general rule, a party in a personal injury case may not directly argue that the seriousness of personal injuries from a car accident correlates to the extent of the damage to the cars, unless the party can produce competent expert testimony on the issue. [3] Absent such expert testimony, any inference by the jury that minimal damage to the plaintiff's car translates into minimal personal injuries to the plaintiff would necessarily amount to unguided speculation. [4] Since Maute presented no expert testimony on this issue, the trial court properly prohibited Maute from making this argument directly. [5]