Opinion ID: 2352695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of evidence of the circumstances of the accident.

Text: The defendants at the beginning of the trial admitted liability. They then asked the court to rule that the circumstances of the accident were not relevant to the issue of damages, citing Watt v. Elwood, 48 Del. 375, 104 A.2d 377. The plaintiffs contended that such circumstances were related to the nature and extent of Mrs. Slattery's injuries and should be received. The trial judge expressed the view that, in general, any phase of the accident that shed light upon the extent of the injuries would be admissible, for example, the force of the impact or the fact that Mrs. Slattery's car was standing still. But the fact that the car was stopped because of a light signal would be immaterial. In effect, this distinction was followed (or sought to be followed) during the trial. Defendants assail this ruling of the trial court, but we think it was correct. The case was obviously one in which the nature of the accident  a sudden violent rear-end collision  was directly related to the nature and extent of the injuries  a whiplash injury to the neck. In such a case the circumstances of the accident are admissible. Judge Herrman's opinion in Watt v. Elwood holds nothing to the contrary. Defendants say that notwithstanding the court's ruling, certain circumstances not related to the nature of the injuries were in fact testified to. This is true, but they either came in without design, or, in one case, as part of a report made by Mrs. Slattery to Dr. Kay. They constitute no basis for any claim of error. Defendants' real objection is that no circumstances of any kind relating to the accident should have been received. For the reasons heretofore stated, this contention is rejected.