Alban v. Fiels
210 Md. App. 1
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- June 11, 2009 accident in Baltimore County; at-fault driver left the scene, returned briefly and laughed as he drove by with injured Albans still at the scene.
- Liability for negligence was uncontested; trial focused on damages, including Ms. Alban's claimed emotional distress.
- Trial court excluded testimony about the defendant's post-accident conduct and the treating psychologist's reliance on that conduct to support emotional-injury opinions.
- Albans proffered witnesses who would have testified the driver laughed and smirked when passing the scene; they sought to connect post-accident conduct to emotional damages.
- Ms. Alban testified about sleep disturbance, anxiety, crying, and fear related to the collision; Dr. Gewanter diagnosed PTSD (later revised) and linked distress to being trapped and the driver’s conduct.
- Court affirmed the exclusion ruling, holding post-accident conduct evidence was irrelevant to compensable emotional distress in a negligence action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-accident conduct is admissible for emotional distress damages | Albans argue conduct is relevant to emotional injury and expert basis. | Fiels contends post-accident conduct is irrelevant and prejudicial. | Excluded; conduct not legally cognizable or probative for damages. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Rule 5-703/5-702 to expert testimony | Experts should rely on factual bases, including post-accident conduct, to explain opinions. | Post-accident conduct cannot under Rule 5-703 form a permissible non-substantive basis for opinions. | Correctly barred; evidence irrelevant and not a legitimate basis for expert opinions. |
| Whether emotional distress damages require a physical injury or impact in Maryland | Evidence of emotional distress tied to fear and trauma supports recovery under Bowman/Vance line. | Emotional distress without independent physical injury is not compensable unless supported by objective manifestations or a cognizable tort. | Emotional distress recoveries limited to injury tied to the accident; additional distress from post-accident conduct not compensable. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion under Rule 5-403 by excluding the evidence | Prejudicial risk was overstated; probative value remained. | Evidence would unduly prejudice the jury and exceed probative value. | No reversible error; the court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman v. Williams, 164 Md. 397, 165 A. 182 (Md. 1933) (physical injury or objective manifestations required for emotional distress in negligence)
- Vance v. Vance, 286 Md. 490, 408 A.2d 728 (Md. 1979) (physical injury or objective manifestations; supports Bowman framework)
- Belcher v. T. Rowe Price Foundation, Inc., 329 Md. 709, 621 A.2d 872 (Md. 1993) (emotional distress under Workers’ Compensation; objective determination standard)
- Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. Pshp., 351 Md. 460, 718 A.2d 1161 (Md. 1998) (survival actions; emotional distress must be objectively determinable)
- Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md.App. 1, 43 A.3d 415 (Md. App. 2012) (post-accident emotional distress evidence must be relevant to distress from accident itself)
- Franch v. Ankney, 341 Md. 350, 670 A.2d 951 (Md. 1996) (limits on expert testimony; faulty legal relevance grounds)
- United States Gypsum Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 336 Md. 145, 647 A.2d 405 (Md. 1994) (basis for expert testimony; admissibility of data reasonably relied upon)
- Gasper, Ruffin Hotel Corp. v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594 (Md. 2011) (review standard for evidentiary rulings; probative value vs prejudice)