 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto v. Stoneberger8/28/2002
l then answered the question in the negative. Later, without objection, he explained why the crane would not have "passed inspection."
It is true that the condition of the crane was irrelevant, and therefore appellant's objection should have been sustained. But appellant does not explain how Mr. Campbell's negative response to that single question prejudiced her, and we do not perceive any prejudice. See Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., Inc., 340 Md. 202, 206 (1995) (to succeed on appeal, an appellant must prove not only error but prejudicial error).
ISSUE 5: Whether the Trial Court Erred in Allowing Counsel for the Appellee to Use Misleading Photographs
There were two photographs of the construction site that came into evidence. Each photograph was identified and authenticated by a different witness. First, Randy Schroyer, who was present when the accident occurred, testified as to a photograph marked plaintiff's Exhibit 11. When asked if Exhibit 11 accurately depicted the intersection of Railroad Lane and Main Street, appellant's counsel objected (in the presence of the jury) "because this was taken after . . . a day or some day after the accident." The trial judge retorted, also in the jury's presence:
Well, I think with the understanding as to when it was taken, I'll permit it. The jury understands . . . I mean the explanation and foundation will be laid as to when this was and if there had been any changes made from the time that the accident occurred.
Mr. Schroyer next noted "that there were things missing" from the photograph. He used Exhibit 11 to show the jury where the crane was located and where he was standing when the accident occurred. Exhibit 11 was then admitted into evidence over appellant's objection. Exhibit 11 does not show any barricades or "no trespassing" signs.
On cross-examination by appellant's counsel, Mr. Schroyer said that (1) there were barricades up on the day of the accident, (2) "no trespassing" signs were placed in the window of the feed mill building, and (3) when the accident occurred, the brownstone house across Railroad Lane from the demolition site had a no trespass sign in the window.
Appellant now argues that Exhibit 11 was "extremely misleading because . . . showed the scene, which was depicted as being reliable, but did not show any barricades, caution tape or signs." This argument, in light of all of Mr. Schroyer's testimony, coupled with what the judge said in the presence of the jury immediately before Exhibit 11 was admitted, is without merit because it is impossible to see how the jury could have been misled.
The Mayor of Smithsburg, Thomas Bowers, was asked whether Exhibit 12 fairly and accurately depicted the intersection of Railroad Lane and Main Street at the time of the accident. Mr. Bowers responded that it did. Exhibit 12 was then admitted without objection. Appellant now contends that Exhibit 12 should have been excluded because it was "highly misleading." This contention has not been preserved. See Md. Rule 8-131(a).
ISSUE 6: Whether the Trial Court Erred in Allowing Patsy Hays, the Caregiver for the Deceased, Mary Stoneberger, and Candi Blessing, to Introduce Social Security Administration Records
Social security disability benefit records were offered into evidence immediately before Patsy Hays took the stand. Appellant's counsel objected, arguing that the records had not been properly authenticated. The trial court asked appellee's counsel for his assurance that the records came directly from the Social Security Administration; upon receipt of that assurance, the court admitted the records.
The records wer
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|