247 N.C. App. 309
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- On August 17, 2012, Sanchez rear-ended Smith’s stopped car; seconds later Herbin rear-ended Sanchez, causing a second collision with Smith.
- At the scene Smith reported immediate tingling in her left arm and an itching/twitching sensation in her back; she sought ER treatment that night.
- Two weeks later Smith began treatment with Dr. Chason Hayes for left shoulder symptoms, received injections, physical therapy, an MRI, and ultimately arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
- Smith sued both defendants for negligence and medical expenses; Herbin admitted negligently causing the collision but denied causing Smith’s injuries.
- At trial Smith offered Dr. Hayes’s deposition attributing her injuries to the crashes; the trial court excluded that testimony as speculative and granted defendants’ motions for directed verdict for lack of proximate causation.
- Smith appealed only the directed verdict, arguing her lay testimony that symptoms began immediately after the crash sufficed to prove causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lay testimony that symptoms (tingling/itching) began immediately after the crash is sufficient to establish proximate causation when expert testimony is excluded | Smith: Her own testimony that symptoms began immediately after the collision suffices to let the jury decide causation | Defendants: Such neurological symptoms and their causes are beyond ordinary lay understanding; expert proof of causation is required | Court: Affirmed directed verdict — lay testimony insufficient because the neurological sensations are not within common understanding and Smith provided no description of the injury mechanics |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to at least nominal damages based on Herbin’s admission of negligence | Smith: Herbin’s admission of negligence entitles her to nominal damages even if injury causation is unproven | Herbin: Admission was limited to negligence causing the collision, not to injuries or causation; trial objection not preserved | Court: Argument waived for lack of preservation; Herbin’s admission did not establish causation or injury on its own |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillikin v. Burbage, 263 N.C. 317 (1965) (expert testimony required when cause of injury is beyond common experience; lay testimony sufficient when cause is obvious, e.g., bruising from impact)
- Jordan v. Glickman, 219 N.C. 388 (1941) (lay testimony may establish causation when mechanics of injury are apparent, e.g., being struck by a car and thrown onto pavement)
- Denson v. Richmond Cty., 159 N.C. App. 408 (2003) (standard for reviewing directed verdicts: view evidence in the light most favorable to nonmovant; more than a scintilla required)