Bowman v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 1790

Bowman, pro se, sued Williams and Holley for injuries from a dog bite occurring on August 1, 2010, following a visit to Williams’s home to discuss placing a campaign sign.
Bowman testified that one of two dogs charged her during the visit and she was bitten on the hip; the next day she observed blood and sought medical treatment.
Bowman sought to introduce numerous exhibits, including medical records, police reports, court documents, vaccination/quarantine records, and photographs; defendants stipulated to the dogs but objected to authentication and hearsay.
The trial court admitted some photographs but refused admission of several documents due to lack of authentication and hearsay concerns; it also refused Bowman’s request to admit an affidavit (Fred’s) and her medical bills.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; Bowman appealed, challenging the evidentiary rulings and asserting the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence	Bowman argues admissions of medical and public records should have been admitted.	Defendants contend records lacked authentication and were inadmissible hearsay.	No abuse; court acted within its discretion
Whether best-evidence and authentication rules bar admission of certain exhibits	Bowman maintains medical and police documents are properly admissible under exceptions.	Defendants maintain lack of authentication and hearsay issues preclude admission.	Court properly excluded or limited exhibits
Whether the trial court erred in excluding Fred’s affidavit	Affidavits are needed to prove facts; best evidence rule supports admission.	Affidavits are not admissible to establish trial facts due to cross-examination issues.	No error; affidavit not admissible
Whether admission of photographs required foundation	Photographs of injuries were probative and properly authenticated by Bowman as fair and accurate.	Improper or insufficient foundation for photographs.	No abuse; proper foundation required and not shown
Whether the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Any inference in Bowman’s favor should support liability.	Evidence supports verdict for defendants; credibility determinations were proper.	Verdict not against the manifest weight; affirmed

State v. McGuire, 80 Ohio St.3d 390 (1997) (trial court discretion over evidence admissibility)
State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19 (1987) (abuse-of-discretion standard on evidentiary rulings)
SFJV v. Ream, 187 Ohio App.3d 715 (2d Dist. 2010) (hearsay and authentication problems with writings)
State v. Moshos, 2010-Ohio-735 (12th Dist. 2010) (authentication of records and public records rule)
State v. Awkal, 76 Ohio St.3d 324 (1996) (photographic evidence requires proper foundation)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (credibility and weight-of-evidence deference on appeal)