49 N.E.3d 175
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On July 18, 2012, Summerhill on a moped attempted a left turn; Klauer, on a motorcycle, was passing and struck the rear-left of the moped. Summerhill suffered a fractured hip and significant medical bills.
- Officer LaMotte’s crash report listed the primary cause as “Improper Turning,” attribution to Summerhill; statements from drivers and witnesses conflicted on lane position and signaling.
- Summerhill planned to call Timothy Spencer, an experienced police officer and accredited accident reconstructionist, who prepared a report and animation blaming Klauer (arguing improper passing/following too closely rather than improper turning).
- Trial court excluded Spencer’s reconstruction testimony and animation under Indiana Evidence Rule 702 as unreliable; Klauer’s reconstructionist, Neese, testified and presented alternative animations at trial.
- Additional exclusions at trial: (1) evidence of Klauer’s >20-year-old convictions (Rule 609(b)); (2) portions of Dr. Erika Mitchell’s deposition about increased likelihood of post‑traumatic arthritis; and (3) a 911 call log showing a purported witness, Sopcich, called the police the next day (court found rebuttal unnecessary).
- Jury returned verdict for Klauer; appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding exclusion of Spencer prejudiced Summerhill and addressing other evidentiary issues for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Spencer (accident reconstruction) under Evid. R. 702 | Spencer qualified; used standard reconstruction methods and evidence (photos, damage, witness statements); opinion would aid jury | Testimony unreliable: gap between inputs and conclusions; failed to consider all witness versions; animation speculative | Reversed exclusion — Spencer should have been admitted; Lytle distinction controls and opposing evidence goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Admission of Klauer’s >10‑year‑old convictions (Rule 609(b)) | Convictions impeach truthfulness and are highly probative, especially because Klauer allegedly lied in discovery about prior convictions | Convictions are remote and prejudicial; Rule 609(b) disfavors admission after ten years | Remanded — trial court erred not to fully consider that pretrial dishonesty increases probative value; new trial court should reassess balancing factors |
| Admissibility of Dr. Mitchell’s opinion on future post‑traumatic arthritis | Expert based opinion on injury nature and studies; can say plaintiff is “more likely” to develop arthritis — admissible, weight for jury | Opinion speculative; lacks quantified probability and degree of certainty | Reversed exclusion — testimony admissible; degree of certainty goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Admission of 911 call log (witness Sopcich called next day) | Call log rebuts implication Sopcich didn’t witness accident and supports her presence/credibility | Objected for lack of foundation and undisclosed rebuttal witness; not proper rebuttal evidence | Exclusion was harmless error as call the next day does not prove presence at accident; but evidence can be re‑offered with proper foundation at retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Borgwald v. Old Nat’l Bank, 12 N.E.3d 252 (Ind. Ct. App.) (discussing trial court gatekeeper role under Evid. R. 702)
- Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 814 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App.) (expert opinion excluded where significant gap existed between data and conclusion)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.) (once admissible under Rule 702, credibility and weight are for jury)
- Koziol v. Vojvoda, 662 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. Ct. App.) (expert may opine on ultimate issue if helpful to jury)
- Dorsett v. R.L. Carter, Inc., 702 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. Ct. App.) (accident reconstruction testimony admissible; lack of full explanation affects weight not admissibility)
- Turner v. State, 720 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. Ct. App.) (requirements for expert testimony under Rule 702)