Shaw v. Underwood
2017 Ohio 845
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Shaw sued after three vehicle collisions (2010, June 23, 2012, and July 28, 2012); at trial he sought damages only for personal injuries from the two 2012 collisions.
- Defendants at trial were Cruizers Auto Sales (vicariously for the June 23 driver) and Linnea Clark (driver in the July 28 collision); negligence was not disputed — proximate causation of Shaw’s injuries was the sole contested issue.
- Trial before a magistrate and a jury produced a verdict for both defendants; the jury answered interrogatories finding Shaw did not sustain injury from either 2012 accident.
- Shaw moved for a new trial and later filed objections to the magistrate’s post-trial decision; the trial court overruled objections and entered final judgment for defendants.
- Key evidentiary points: a lay witness (Tanner) who was behind Shaw testified about observed preexisting damage/rust on Shaw’s bumper; Dr. David Kim (surgeon) testified the accidents were a factor but acknowledged preexisting degenerative conditions and prior complaints.
- Shaw appealed, asserting (1) improper admission of Tanner’s opinion about vehicle damage, (2) trial court erred by not directing a verdict for Shaw, and (3) trial court erred in denying a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Tanner’s testimony about whether the June 23 accident caused damage to Shaw’s truck | Tanner improperly offered expert opinion about causation/damage without qualification | Tanner’s statements were lay-opinion testimony based on perception and thus admissible under Evid.R. 701 | Court: admissible as lay opinion — rationally based on perception and helpful to the jury; no abuse of discretion |
| Directed verdict | Shaw argues the evidence required a directed verdict in his favor on proximate causation/damages | Defendants had evidence undermining causation; Shaw failed to move for a directed verdict at close of all evidence | Court: waived by failure to move; no plain-error argument made, so claim is forfeited |
| Motion for new trial—weight of evidence and evidentiary errors | Jury’s verdict against the weight of evidence; Tanner’s testimony and other alleged trial errors warranted a new trial | Evidence supported competing inferences (preexisting conditions vs. accident causation); alleged errors not prejudicial | Court: no abuse of discretion in denying new trial; reasonable evidence supported verdict and Tanner’s testimony was properly admitted |
| Cumulative/repetitive questioning and disclosure issues (Medicare, other litigation) | Repetitive questioning and references to Medicare/other accidents prejudiced jury | Repetitive questioning was managed by the magistrate; references were largely from plaintiff’s own testimony and relevant to causation | Court: no reversible error; trial court did not abuse discretion in handling these matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial courts have broad discretion in admitting expert testimony and applying reliability standards)
- Chemical Bank of N.Y. v. Neman, 52 Ohio St.3d 204 (1990) (failure to renew a directed verdict motion waives the issue on appeal)
- Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., 126 Ohio St.3d 210 (2010) (admission of evidence is within trial court discretion)
- Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St.3d 351 (2007) (appellate review of trial-court decisions on expert testimony is for abuse of discretion)