 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Choi v. Anvil9/7/2001
life is entirely sufficient." We have since affirmed this principle and "require expert medical testimony to establish a causal connection only where there is no reasonably apparent (as distinguished from obvious) causal relationship between the event demonstrated and the result sought to be proved."
Choi's proposed Nebraska rule posits that all subjective injuries "are of such a character as to require skilled and professional persons to determine the cause." But the Nebraska courts' characterization of subjective injuries fails to give credit to the life experiences of jurors and judges as triers of fact.
The record in this case demonstrates the adequacy of lay testimony to establish causation and damages of subjective injuries in typical cases. The plaintiffs testified that the collision caused their bodies to jerk, fly forward, or violently strike their seats. Hazel Akerelrea, for example, testified that the impact caused her head to go "way back, just like somebody just hit her and just pushed her head back. And the impact on the [car seat] was really, really hard." The plaintiffs also testified that the accident caused them physical pain: various plaintiffs described pain in their necks, shoulders, arms, and backs. Finally, the plaintiffs testified that the accident has caused them to suffer anxiety associated with driving, intersections, and taxi cabs.
This lay testimony, based on personal observation, described a situation easily understood by a jury: a rear-end automobile collision causing relatively common injuries. These injuries manifested symptoms like pain, stiffness, and loss of strength. Although a medical expert might have more precisely described the relationship between the impact and the effects described by the plaintiffs, the jury, using everyday experience, could readily find a causal relationship without this expert assistance. The jury could also find that the injuries resulted in compensable damages. Because the causation and injuries were reasonably related to the impact between the automobiles, there was no need for an expert.
In short, where alleged injuries -- including purely subjective injuries -- are of a common nature and arise from a readily identifiable cause, there is no need for the injured party to produce expert testimony. Requiring expert testimony in all such cases would needlessly increase the cost of litigation, discourage injured persons from bringing small but legitimate claims, and also burden defendants, who might feel compelled to hire their own experts in response.
IV. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|