 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hathcock v. Wood3/16/2001
ersal of the judgment. We disagree.
"It is well settled that it `is highly prejudicial to a defendant for the jury to be improperly informed as to the ... poverty of the plaintiff.'" Bennett v. Brewer, 682 So. 2d 448, 449 (Ala. 1996) (quoting Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 282 Ala. 227, 230, 210 So. 2d 701, 703 (1968)). Consequently, evidence of this character is generally inadmissible, see Miller v. Dacovich, 355 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Ala. 1978); Johnson v. Harrison, 404 So. 2d 337, 339-40 (Ala. 1981); Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 765 So. 2d 652, 654 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998); and McElroy's Alabama Evidence, supra, § 189.05(1). Nevertheless, we have recognized that evidence of this character "may be relevant and admissible when it goes to a material issue in the case." Johnson v. Harrison, 404 So. 2d 337, 339 (Ala. 1981).
Mrs. Wood's testimony as to the loss of the family business was admissible for purposes of proving the damages claimed, because it supported an inference that the Woods lost the business because injuries he sustained in the March 19, 1994, accident caused Mr. Wood to be unable to work. Therefore, Mrs. Wood's comments concerning the Woods' poverty tended directly to prove Mr. Wood's diminished earning capacity; thus, they were relevant to a material issue in the case. See generally Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Snoddy, 457 So. 2d 379, 381 (Ala. 1984) ("In a personal injury action, a plaintiff is entitled to recover both the value of the work time lost prior to trial (`lost earnings') and the value of the reduction in his ability to earn a living (`impairment of earning capacity')."
Evidence regarding a party's financial condition may also be admissible when the party's opponent has "opened the door by commenting upon or asking questions concerning party's financial standing." McElroy's Alabama Evidence, supra, § 189.05(2)(c). Rebuttal evidence, however, must not be "substantially unconnected with the [previously admitted] illegal evidence." Cook v. Latimer, 274 Ala. 283, 288, 147 So. 2d 831, 835 (1962).
Counsel for Hathcock suggested in her opening statement that the temporal gaps in Mr. Wood's medical treatment called into question his claim that his injuries were caused by the automobile accident or called into question whether his injuries were as severe as he maintained they were. In Alabama Power Co. v. Bruce, 209 Ala. 423, 96 So. 346 (1923), this Court addressed similar facts with respect to a plaintiff who underwent a surgical procedure that he alleged had been made necessary by an accident he alleged had been caused by the defendant 10 months earlier. In that case, defense counsel commented during closing arguments that the plaintiff's delay in seeking treatment suggested that his injuries either were not caused by the accident or were not as serious as he had claimed. Plaintiff's counsel responded in his closing argument by stating that the plaintiff had not sought medical treatment because of the poverty of the plaintiff's family. The defendant argued on appeal that the statements of the plaintiff's counsel were improper and warranted an order granting a new trial. This Court disagreed, holding that the poverty argument by the plaintiff's counsel was not improper, given the prior suggestion by defense counsel regarding the plaintiff's failure to obtain immediate medical treatment. Alabama Power, 209 Ala. at 427, 96 So. at 349. In that case, defense counsel's remarks made the plaintiff's poverty evidence relevant for an admissible purpose.
We conclude that the principle applied in Alabama Power Co. v. Bruce also applies in the present case. Defense counsel's opening statements suggested to the jury that the evidence w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|