In Brenman v. Demello, 191 N.J. 18(2007), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that expert testimony is not required as a condition precedent to the admission of photographs of vehicle damage when the cause or extent of plaintiff’s injuries are at issue. In Brenman, Rena Brenman was driving in stop and go traffic when her car was struck from behind by a car driven by defendant, Stephanie Demello. The plaintiff filed a motion in limine arguing the sole purpose of the photographs was to show that there was no way plaintiff could have sustained the injuries she asserted she sustained in the accident. Plaintiff further argued that the issue was scientific and required expert testimony through a biomechanical expert, an engineer or someone who had the requisite training and experience to advise the jurors on the relationship between the damage to plaintiff’s automobile, or the lack thereof, and her physical injuries.
Siding with the defendant, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded:
Juries are entitled to infer that which resides squarely in the center of
every day knowledge: the certainty of proportion, and the resulting recognition
that slight force most often results in slight injury, and great force most
often is accompanied by great injury.
However, the Court did add the following:
Finally, we acknowledge those cases outside the heartland of common knowledge
where slight force causes great injury or where great force causes little
injury. In order to account for those possibilities, where photographs of
vehicle damage are admitted, the trial judge should remind the jury that
some bad accidents result in little injury, that some minor accidents result
in serious injury and that, therefore, the level of damage to a vehicle is
but one factor to be considered, along with all the other evidence, in determining
the level of plaintiff’s injuries resulting from the accident.
If you should have any questions regarding this opinion, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (856) 751-5285.
Glendon E. Danks
