138 A.3d 638
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Pedestrian Thomas Coughlin was struck and killed on Castor Avenue, Philadelphia; driver Ummu Massaquoi admitted she never saw him and there were no eyewitnesses to the collision.
- Post-mortem toxicology showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .313 and trace cocaine metabolite; decedent was pronounced dead and no prior-observer testimony indicated visible intoxication.
- Defendant introduced toxicology results and an expert, Dr. Richard Saferstein, who testified that a .313 BAC would render an average person severely intoxicated and unfit to cross a street.
- Plaintiff moved in limine to exclude the BAC results and expert testimony for lack of independent corroboration (no eyewitness signs of intoxication); the trial court denied the motion but precluded the expert from opining on ultimate causation.
- Jury found defendant negligent but that her negligence was not the factual cause of death; plaintiff appealed only the evidentiary rulings admitting BAC and expert testimony.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding that expert testimony interpreting the effects of a particular BAC level can serve as the corroborating evidence required to admit post-mortem BAC in civil cases involving alleged intoxication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-mortem BAC without independent corroboration | BAC alone is inadmissible; no eyewitness signs of intoxication existed so evidence should be excluded | BAC is relevant and, when coupled with expert interpretation, suffices as corroboration | Admitted: expert testimony about effects of the BAC provided requisite corroboration and trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Admissibility of toxicology expert testimony based solely on post-mortem BAC | Expert opinion is unreliable absent independent non-lab evidence of intoxication | Expert may testify about expected effects of a particular BAC on an average person; tolerance does not negate impairment of judgment | Admitted: expert testimony was appropriate corroboration and properly limited (no causation opinion) |
| Applicability of Gallagher and related precedents | Gallagher requires independent corroboration beyond BAC (e.g., slurred speech, unsteady gait) | Gallagher permits expert testimony as the corroborating evidence to interpret BAC significance | Court applied Gallagher and held expert testimony satisfies the corroboration requirement |
| Whether admission warranted a new trial | Erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence warrants new trial | Admission was within trial court’s discretion and not outcome-determinative | No new trial: no abuse of discretion shown in admitting BAC and expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. Ing, 532 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. 1987) (expert testimony interpreting BAC can serve as corroboration to admit blood-alcohol results)
- Braun v. Target Corp., 983 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. 2009) (corroborative evidence of intoxication may be expert testimony on impairment from measured levels)
- Ackerman v. Delcomico, 486 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 1984) (blood alcohol level is circumstantial evidence of intoxication but requires other evidence of impaired conduct)
- Morreale v. Prince, 258 A.2d 508 (Pa. 1969) (evidence of intoxication must establish degree of impairment proving unfitness for the activity at issue)
- Kriner v. McDonald, 302 A.2d 392 (Pa. Super. 1973) (Critzer/Morreale rules extend to pedestrians: intoxication evidence inadmissible unless it shows unfitness to cross the street)