Partlow, L. v. Gray, K.
165 A.3d 1013
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On April 4, 2013, Calvin Wilson, Jr. (Decedent) was killed when Kahlile Gray (Appellant) made a left turn and struck Decedent's motorcycle; Decedent had recorded the ride on a GoPro and had performed wheelies shortly before the crash.
- Appellant displayed bloodshot, watery eyes and lethargy at the scene; he denied drinking that day; a blood test two hours after the crash showed BAC 0.073, and plaintiff’s expert extrapolated a BAC of .104 at the time of impact.
- The estate (Appellee) sued for survival and wrongful death; at trial Appellant conceded liability but asserted comparative negligence by Decedent.
- The trial court admitted evidence of Appellant’s intoxication (officer observations, BAC results, expert testimony) and allowed 17 minutes of the 40‑minute GoPro video while excluding earlier portions.
- A jury found for Appellee (no comparative negligence) and awarded $3.1 million; post‑trial motions were denied and judgment entered. Appellant appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Partlow) | Defendant's Argument (Gray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of intoxication evidence | Intoxication evidence was relevant to unfitness to drive and comparative negligence; corroborated by observations, BAC, and expert opinion | Admission was irrelevant/prejudicial, especially after punitive damages were dismissed | Evidence admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| 2. Sufficiency of corroboration for BAC/expert testimony | Officer observations + BAC test + expert relation‑back provided adequate corroboration beyond a "mere hint" | BAC and expert opinion lacked adequate corroboration and were prejudicial | Corroboration sufficient; combined evidence properly admitted |
| 3. Exclusion of earlier GoPro footage | Admitted 17 minutes showed aggressive driving close in time to crash and was sufficient for comparative negligence issues | Earlier portions were highly relevant to show Decedent’s general negligence and were improperly excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion; excluded portions were remote in time and cumulative |
| 4. Redaction of accident‑reconstruction expert report and exclusion of testimony based on redacted video portions | Redaction appropriately limited reliance on excluded, irrelevant or cumulative video material | Redactions prevented meaningful testimony and prejudiced defense | No abuse of discretion; expert was not entitled to rely on excluded, non‑probative video portions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lykes v. Yates, 77 A.3d 27 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and admissibility principles)
- Commonwealth v. McKellick, 24 A.3d 982 (Pa. Super. 2011) (videotape authentication and trial court discretion on admissibility)