Rohe, K. v. Vinson, D. and Felton Welding, 158 A.3d 88

On April 7, 2012 Kevin Rohe (Appellant) on a motorcycle attempted to pass two trucks in a lawful passing zone and collided with the lead tri‑axle truck driven by Darris Vinson (Appellee); Rohe suffered severe injuries.
Rohe admitted drinking beers during a day ride (six to seven small beers over 6–7 hours) and a hospital blood draw within two hours of the crash reported alcohol in serum at 0.08%; converted to whole blood the level was ~0.0706%.
Appellees offered expert Dr. Gary Lage, who performed "relation‑back" calculations and opined Rohe’s BAC was higher at the time of the crash (0.085–0.10%) and that Rohe was impaired; Rohe offered a competing toxicologist who calculated a lower level.
Multiple witnesses (friend Carl Bird, EMS, Trooper Stempien, eyewitness Laxton, Vinson) testified Rohe showed no classic signs of intoxication (no slurred speech, glassy eyes, odor, or erratic behavior); several witnesses said Rohe accepted fault.
Trial court denied Rohe’s pretrial motion in limine to exclude evidence of alcohol consumption and BAC; after a defense verdict (finding Vinson not negligent) Rohe appealed, arguing the alcohol evidence was unduly prejudicial and insufficient to show unfitness to drive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rohe)	Defendant's Argument (Vinson/Fenton)	Held
Admissibility of evidence that Rohe drank and visited bars	Drinking alone is inadmissible in negligence actions unless it reasonably shows intoxication/unfitness to drive; here no objective signs of intoxication existed	Evidence of drinking and BAC (with expert relation‑back) shows intoxication and is relevant to causation and negligence	Evidence of mere drinking and related bar visits should have been excluded; drinking alone is unduly prejudicial absent proof of unfitness
Admissibility of BAC and expert "relation‑back" testimony	BAC (whole‑blood converted ~0.0706% at draw) is below legal limit; Dr. Lage’s relation‑back is speculative and misstates facts, so BAC and expert opinion should be excluded	Expert relation‑back provided circumstantial proof that Rohe was intoxicated at collision and supports admission of BAC and expert testimony	Court held relation‑back testimony and BAC were too speculative and prejudicial given lack of objective indicia of intoxication and sub‑legal measured level; admission was error requiring a new trial

Fisher v. Dye, 386 Pa. 141, 125 A.2d 472 (Pa. 1956) (mere fact of drinking is inadmissible in civil negligence unless it reasonably establishes degree of intoxication and unfitness to drive)
Locke v. Claypool, 627 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (classic objective signs required to admit drinking/BAC evidence; relation‑back testimony can be speculative)
Ackerman v. Delcomico, 486 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (BAC alone insufficient to prove intoxication; other conduct or expert interpretation required)
Gallagher v. Ing, 532 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (expert testimony may corroborate significance of BAC above presumptive DUI level in civil cases)
Whyte v. Robinson, 617 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (erroneous admission of prejudicial alcohol evidence can require a new trial)
Vignoli v. Standard Motor Freight, 418 Pa. 214, 210 A.2d 271 (Pa. 1965) (evidence of two beers several hours earlier insufficient to establish intoxication)
Braun v. Target Corp., 983 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (admission appropriate where high BAC is corroborated by conduct and expert opinion showing impairment)
Morreale v. Prince, 436 Pa. 51, 258 A.2d 508 (Pa. 1969) (evidence of being in a bar is prejudicial like evidence of drinking and should be excluded absent proof of intoxication)