 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lagola v. Thomas1/31/2005
n activist in that regard. I seldom ask questions, unless either the language that was being used was confusing to me.
And perhaps I thought it would be confusing to the jury, or it was an issue I was concerned that the impression that was being left was perhaps not balanced. And so I've asked a few questions. If the Supreme Court thinks I've asked them improperly, they will tell me that.
The parties' closing arguments followed. During Thomas' closing argument, his counsel referred to Patrolman Shepard's testimony that the speed of Lagola's vehicle was the "primary contributing circumstance" of the accident. Specifically, Thomas' counsel argued:
"So, number one, we think all the evidence shows it wasn't icy. It wasn't icy. The defense is entirely predicated upon the road being icy.
If you assume the road was icy, she drove her car too fast for the road conditions. And we feel that's why you should answer yes to No. 1." Question No. 1 to the jury was "Do you find that defendant, Regina Lagola, was negligent in a manner which proximately caused the accident of February 7th, 1999." Thomas' counsel also reviewed the opinions of the parties' biomechanical experts and requested that the jury use their "common sense" in reviewing Lagola's biomechanical expert's testimony.
The jury returned a verdict in Thomas' favor. Question No. 1 was answered "yes" as Thomas' counsel had urged. When the jury foreman was asked: "What do you find to be fair and reasonable compensation to Walter Thomas for injuries sustained as a proximate result of the accident on February 7, 1999?", the foreman replied "Five dollars - - one million dollars." Lagola claims that the jury laughed and that the foreman was smiling when the verdict was returned. The record shows that the trial judge noted that the verdict sheet indicated one million dollars and that when the jury was questioned, it agreed with this figure for damages.
II. Discussion
Lagola raises several issues on appeal. We discuss two of these issues, and conclude that Lagola is entitled to a new trial. The first issue is the admissibility of the police officer's testimony concerning the "primary contributing circumstance" of the automobile accident. This issue turns on whether that testimony is admissible factual testimony or an inadmissible lay opinion. We conclude that absent Patrolman Shepard being qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction, his testimony on the "primary contributing circumstance" of the accident was inadmissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 701. It is undisputed that the officer was not an accident reconstruction expert qualified to testify on matters of causation. We conclude that it was error to admit such testimony and that a new trial is warranted.
The second issue we address presents the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in his manner of questioning defense witnesses in front of the jury. While we need not decide whether the trial judge's questions warrant reversal because we have decided already that a new trial is warranted, we emphasize that a trial judge must exercise extreme caution and self-restraint in the questioning of witnesses before a jury because of the potential influence such questioning may have upon the jury. Caution and self-restraint should be exercised by the trial judge at the new trial.
A.
Patrolman Shepard's testimony concerning the "primary contributing circumstance" of the accident
We turn first to the issue of the admissibility of Patrolman Shepard's testimony regarding the "primary contributing circumstance" of the accident. We review a trial judge's evidenti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|