Dickerson v. Miller's TLC, Inc., 2012 Ohio 2493

Dickerson v. Taylor and Miller’s TLC arises from a 11/26/2007 truck–auto collision at East 30th St. and Broadway Ave. in Cleveland; Taylor left‑turned into Dickerson’s path.
Dickerson filed 7/22/2008; case dismissed without prejudice 1/12/2009; refiled 1/21/2010 and went to trial 1/24/2011.
Taylor testified at deposition that Dickerson was approximately 50 yards away when the turn began, and that she was traveling 40–50 mph.
At trial, Taylor later used Google Maps on his phone to estimate 250–300 feet from the intersection; Dickerson moved for mistrial; motion denied.
The jury verdict was $136,665.38, reduced 50% for comparative negligence to a net $68,333; Dickerson appealed.
Appellate court affirmed, holding two evidentiary rulings were not error: Google Maps distance testimony and a site-visit distance testimony as newly discovered evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Google Maps distance	Dickerson argues Taylor’s Google Maps distance was inadmissible hearsay.	Taylor’s measurements were admissible as a non‑hearsay measurement tool used by a lay witness.	Not hearsay; admissible; proper for lay testimony.
Newly discovered evidence via site visit	Taylor’s pretrial site visit introduced unfair surprise from undisclosed evidence.	Counsel had opportunity to verify measurements; no prejudice from the site visit.	No prejudicial error; conduct not unfair surprise; overruled.

State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001-Ohio-1290) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (1991) (abuse of discretion standard; evidentiary rulings require reasonableness)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002-Ohio-68) (trial court abuse when arbitrary or unconscionable)
State v. Franklin, 164 Ohio App.3d 758 (2005-Ohio-6854) (global imaging devices generally reliable; lay testimony possible)