 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dewark v. Hoffman9/14/2004
act of the collision and evidence of Rannells' injuries, the record reflects that Van Dewark was permitted to adduce evidence regarding the property damage incurred by Rannells through the introduction of photographs of all the vehicles involved in the accident and the property damage estimate of Rannells' vehicle. See Vredeveld v. Clark, 244 Neb. 46, 504 N.W.2d 292 (1993) (photographs of vehicles in collision admissible even though liability for accident admitted where defendant denies nature and extent of injuries caused thereby). The jury was also able to consider Van Dewark's testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident, the force of the impact, and the damage sustained to his vehicle. Further, the jury also considered Van Dewark's testimony about the alleged injuries he sustained and his chiropractor's assessment and treatment of his alleged injuries, as well as Van Dewark's wife's testimony concerning Van Dewark's physical condition and the condition of Van Dewark's vehicle involved in the accident. Thus, we fail to see how Van Dewark was unduly prejudiced by the exclusion of the evidence in connection with Rannells in determining the issue of Van Dewark's damages. Further, we agree with Hoffman's assertion that if the jury had been allowed to consider the excluded evidence, confusion of the issues may have occurred or misled the jury regarding the issue to be determined, which was Van Dewark's damages rather than Rannells'. In sum, the probative value of the excluded evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, particularly given the admitted evidence concerning the force of the impact and the damage to all three vehicles. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Rannells' statement concerning the impact and force of the collision or evidence of Rannells' personal injuries. These assignments of error are without merit.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the district court did not err in excluding Rannells' statement concerning the impact and force of the accident or evidence of Rannells' personal injuries. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed.
|