106 A.3d 183
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Appellant (motorcyclist) crashed at Broad & Diamond Streets after riding over a temporarily patched excavation/trench; he suffered serious leg fractures and sued the contractors (Appellees).
- Trial lasted Feb 2013; jury found Appellees negligent and awarded $180,000, reduced for comparative negligence to $95,400. Appellant moved for a new trial; trial court denied and Appellant appealed.
- Officer Hassel prepared a police accident report (alleging a pothole caused the crash) but did not testify; Officer Caserío testified from his recollection and had reviewed the report before testifying.
- Appellant sought to exclude parts of the police report and for other witnesses to be cross-examined or to reference the report; the trial court excluded the report’s opinions as hearsay under the Vehicle Code and evidentiary rules.
- Appellees’ reconstruction expert (Martin) testified the crash was a low-side caused by operator error, basing his opinion on record evidence (photos, site inspection, vehicle data); Appellant presented experts (Posusney, a civil engineer, and Dr. Thomas, biomechanics) who disagreed.
- On appeal Appellant argued Martin’s testimony lacked a proper factual foundation, the court improperly barred cross-examination and barred Appellant’s experts from relying on or referencing the police report; the court affirmed denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/foundation of Martin’s expert opinion | Martin speculated and failed to identify facts/data supporting his causation opinion | Martin identified record materials he relied on (photos, site visit, vehicle data); Pa.R.E. 705 satisfied | Court: No abuse of discretion; Martin testified to facts/data in the record supporting his low‑side/operator‑error opinion |
| Use of police accident report to impeach/cross-examine Officer Caserío | Appellant should be allowed to cross‑examine with the report because Caserío reviewed it to refresh recollection | Report is inadmissible hearsay; Caserío testified from independent recollection and did not quote the report | Court: Cross‑examination with the report was not required; trial court properly limited use under Pa.R.E. 612 and hearsay rules |
| Use of police accident report to cross‑examine or impeach Martin | Appellant wanted to use report statements about roadway irregularities to challenge Martin | All parties acknowledged roadway irregularities; Martin did not rely on or quote report content as central | Court: Properly excluded; Martin’s review of the report did not permit introducing the report’s opinions |
| Appellant’s experts referencing opinions in the police report | Posusney and Dr. Thomas should have been allowed to incorporate Hassel’s report opinions under Pa.R.E. 703 | Police report opinions (by non‑testifying Officer Hassel) are inadmissible hearsay and Vehicle Code bars use; experts may rely on facts but may not parrot another’s conclusions | Court: Excluding officer’s report opinions was proper; experts may consider underlying facts but may not introduce Hassel’s conclusions indirectly |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rounds, 518 Pa. 204, 542 A.2d 997 (expert opinion proper if facts relied on are of record)
- Commonwealth v. Paskings, 447 Pa. 350, 290 A.2d 82 (expert must base opinion on salient facts in the record)
- Boucher v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 831 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (limits on using non‑admitted report to impeach an expert who mischaracterizes it)
- Fisher v. North Hills Passavant Hospital, 781 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (prejudicial incident reports may be excluded; limited cross‑examination permitted for bias)
- Rox Coal Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Snizaski), 570 Pa. 60, 807 A.2d 906 (police report by non‑testifying officer is inadmissible hearsay and cannot be introduced indirectly)
- Luzerne Cnty. Flood Prot. Auth. v. Reilly, 825 A.2d 779 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (expert may rely on non‑testifying expert’s findings but may not merely restate conclusions)
- Gustison v. Ted Smith Floor Prods., Inc., 679 A.2d 1304 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (medical expert may rely on non‑admitted reports but cannot parrot another’s conclusions)
- Milan v. Dep’t of Transp., 620 A.2d 721 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (police report may be relied on when its author testifies or contents are otherwise in the record)