Christ v. Schwartz
2 Cal. App. 5th 440
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Schwartz was negligent per stipulation; Susan and Jon claimed damages for injury and loss of consortium respectively.
- Jury found no damages for Susan or Jon despite Schwartz's liability.
- Christs challenged admission of postaccident vehicle photographs and evidence of Jon's extramarital affair as to relevance and prejudice.
- Evidence showed Susan's treatment history, alleged fibromyalgia, and substantial impeachment through prior statements and a sub rosa video.
- Trial court admitted the photographs and affair evidence; Christs moved for new trial, which was denied.
- Court affirmed the judgment, holding any errors harmless and the jury credibility determinations supported the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of postaccident vehicle photos | Christ challenged lack of expert foundation for photos. | Photos are admissible to illustrate collision force and support causation. | Court allowed admission; error, if any, harmless. |
| Admissibility of Jon's extramarital affair evidence | Evidence prejudicial, remote, not probative of loss of consortium. | Affair relevant to loss of companionship and sexual relations; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Court permitted evidence; not abuse of discretion; not reversible error. |
| Impact of admitted evidence on verdict | The evidence biased the jury and caused miscarriage of justice. | Credibility issues and other impeachment supported verdict independent of that evidence. | Any error was not prejudicial; no miscarriage of justice; verdict affirmed. |
| Credibility as core to damages | Susan's testimony sufficiently credible to award damages. | Impeachment and objective evidence undermined credibility; no damages warranted. | Court upheld credibility findings; supported by substantial impeachment and lack of objective injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Allen, 42 Cal.3d 1222 (Cal. 1986) (evidentiary photography admissibility discretion; no need for expert when within common knowledge)
- Brenman v. Demello, 921 A.2d 1110 (N.J. 2007) (photographs of vehicle damage admissible without expert where relevant to injury)
- Murray v. Mossman, 329 P.2d 1089 (Wash. 1958) (use of vehicle damage to indicate force and potential injury)
- Carruthers v. Cunha, 133 Cal.App.2d 91 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1955) (defense verdict possible despite admitted liability when plaintiff's injuries not proven)
- Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2004) (miscarriage of justice standard; defense verdict upheld when evidence supports credibility findings)