Chester v. Manis
89 A.3d 1034
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- On July 9, 2008, plaintiff Frances Chester sued after a motor vehicle collision she alleged was caused by defendant Kevin Manis; suit proceeded to jury trial against Kevin Manis (Walter Manis died during the case).
- Before trial, defendant moved in limine to exclude certain evidence: speed calculated from skid marks, replacement cost of plaintiff’s vehicle, and increase in plaintiff’s insurance premium.
- Plaintiff opposed, arguing skid-mark-derived speed could be proven circumstantially (citing Terminal Taxi Co. v. Flynn). The trial court granted the motion in limine (ruling itself is not in the record) and allowed only the police officer to testify about skid marks under limited circumstances.
- At trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendant; plaintiff appealed, arguing the motion in limine was defective and that excluded evidence prejudiced her right to cross-examine and to have the jury decide facts about speed and damages.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the record was inadequate to review whether the exclusion was harmful and therefore declined to reach the merits of the evidentiary claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in granting motion in limine excluding skid-mark speed evidence | Chester: speed can be proved by circumstantial evidence (Terminal Taxi) and exclusion improperly decided factual issue for jury | Manis: expert testimony required for speed-from-skid-mark calculations; exclusion within court’s discretion | Court: Did not reach merits — affirmed because appellant failed to provide an adequate record to assess harm |
| Whether motion in limine was procedurally defective for not stating prejudice | Chester: motion lacked specific prejudice showing | Manis: procedural sufficiency implicit; ruling valid | Court: Did not reach merits due to inadequate record |
| Whether exclusion denied full and fair cross-examination of defendant | Chester: exclusion prevented questioning about skid marks and police statements | Manis: trial court limited only lay testimony about skid marks; officer testimony could be allowed | Court: Could not assess prejudice on limited transcript; claim not reviewed |
| Whether exclusion of vehicle replacement cost and insurance premium evidence was improper | Chester: such evidence should be admissible for damages | Manis: trial court excluded these as part of motion in limine | Court: Declined to review because record lacks transcripts/exhibits to show harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Commerford, 168 Conn. 64 (Conn. 1975) (discusses need for expert proof on certain accident reconstruction issues)
- Toomey v. Danaher, 161 Conn. 204 (Conn. 1971) (addressing admissibility of technical speed calculations)
- Terminal Taxi Co. v. Flynn, 156 Conn. 313 (Conn. 1968) (speed may sometimes be established by circumstantial evidence)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 (Conn. 2008) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Desrosiers v. Henne, 283 Conn. 361 (Conn. 2007) (error in excluding evidence in civil case must be shown harmful on record)
- Stutz v. Shepard, 279 Conn. 115 (Conn. 2006) (appellant’s burden to furnish adequate record for review)