Hayes v. Delamotte, 175 A.3d 953

Background

In 2008 Hayes was injured in an automobile crash; prior cervical MRIs existed (last pre-accident MRI May 2007) and post-accident MRIs were taken; she later had additional fusion surgery.
Defendants presented defense expert Dr. Vasen via videotaped deposition; he compared what he said were pre- and post-accident cervical MRIs and opined there was no change from 2007 to 2008.
The two MRI images shown in Dr. Vasen’s deposition were both labeled with the same post-accident exam date, but that labeling discrepancy was not addressed at the deposition or during the first trial.
Plaintiff sought to replay portions of the videotaped deposition during summation to highlight that the films bore the same date; the trial court barred the replay, reasoning expert testimony would be needed to establish the discrepancy.
The jury in the first trial found no permanent injury (verdict for defendants); the trial court granted plaintiff a new trial on grounds that denial of the replay led to a miscarriage of justice. At retrial (with the non-testifying-expert issue handled differently) plaintiff won; Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the first verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the second-trial verdict for plaintiff.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Permissibility of replaying portions of videotaped deposition during summation	Counsel may replay and comment on testimony admitted at trial; replay is part of closing argument latitude.	Replay was prejudicial and would amount to unfair emphasis or surprise absent an expert to explain discrepancy.	Counsel may replay portions of videotaped testimony in summation if comments are confined to facts shown or reasonably suggested and Condella safeguards are met; barring replay was error.
Whether expert testimony was required to point out that two MRIs bore the same date	No — reading dates on films is within jurors’ ordinary faculties; no expert needed to point out identical labeling.	Yes — an expert would be needed to show the films were the same or mislabelled; otherwise replay could misstate evidence.	No expert was required; noting identical dates is within juror competence.
Admissibility of non-testifying experts’ opinions introduced through a testifying expert	Defense improperly used reports of non-testifying doctors to bolster Vasen; such hearsay should be excluded or limited.	Trial court’s limiting instruction sufficed; testimony about others’ findings was permissible background.	Testifying expert may state sources relied on but may not present non-testifying experts’ conclusions as substantive proof; admitting such corroborative statements at first trial was error.
Whether granting a new trial was appropriate (did denial of replay produce miscarriage of justice)	Denial undermined plaintiff’s ability to challenge key defense expert and thus produced miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.	Verdict could rest on multiple bases; trial court improperly usurped jury by attributing weight to Vasen and should not have ordered new trial.	Given centrality of expert evidence and that replay would have undermined Vasen’s credibility, the denial resulted in miscarriage of justice; new trial was proper.

Key Cases Cited

Risko v. Thompson Muller Auto. Grp., 20 A.3d 1123 (discusses standard for overturning jury verdict and miscarriage of justice)
Agha v. Feiner, 965 A.2d 141 (addresses limits on experts testifying to opinions of non-testifying experts)
Condella v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 689 A.2d 872 (permits limited replay of videotaped trial testimony during summation with safeguards)
James v. Ruiz, 111 A.3d 123 (bars use of absent experts’ opinions as tie-breakers between experts)
Kelly, State v., 478 A.2d 364 (explains expert testimony addresses matters beyond juror ken)
Colucci v. Oppenheim, 740 A.2d 1101 (summation latitude limited to facts shown or reasonably suggested by evidence)