In the non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Bazzano v. Spade, No. 99 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 23, 2024 McLaughlin, J., King, J., and Beck, J.) (Mem. by McLaughlin, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions on evidentiary rulings during the course of a motor vehicle accident trial in which the jury awarded the Plaintiff $7,500.00 in damages.
According to the Opinion, the Defendant struck the Plaintiff with his vehicle while the Plaintiff was walking through a parking lot. After the accident, in a companion criminal case, the Defendant had pled guilty to simple assault and recklessly endangering another person, which were misdemeanors of the second degree.
Among the issues raised on appeal after this personal injury trial was the Plaintiff’s desire to introduce into evidence the Defendant’s guilty plea from the criminal case during the course of the civil jury trial on the personal injury claims.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court had properly precluded the references to the Defendant’s criminal charges. In part, the court noted that the Defendant admitted liability for the happening of the accident in this civil litigation and that, therefore, the only issues present in the civil trial were the issues of damages.
The Superior Court also affirmed the trial court’s refusal to admit into evidence the Defendant’s prior DUI convictions. The Plaintiffs attempted to utilize this evidence to establish the Defendant’s habit and pattern of recklessness. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant’s recklessness in this case was in conformity with his past actions demonstrating recklessness while driving.
The Plaintiff was relying upon F.R.E. 406 which provides that evidence of a person’s habit may be admitted to prove that, on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with that habit.
The Superior Court found that the trial court properly denied the Plaintiff’s request to admit the Defendant’s two (2) prior DUI convictions to demonstrate of recklessness. The Superior Court noted that there was no evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the subject accident. The Superior Court agreed that the evidence was not relevant and the prejudicial impact of that evidence outweighed any potential relevance.
Based on these reasons, and other reasons, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The judgment was affirmed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Krista M. Corabi, Esquire of the Pittsburgh office of the Summers, McDonnell Hudak, Guthrie & Rauch law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
