Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-10-049 WLW.
August 9, 2004.
Jeffrey S. Friedman, Esquire, Silverman McDonald, Wilmington, Delaware.
Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire, Michael A. Pedicone, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware.
Dear Counsel:
The Court has considered Plaintiff Melvin Scott's motion in limine to preclude any reference to alcohol during the trial. Defendant Charles Ritterson opposes the motion. The Court has decided to allow Defendant to introduce this evidence.
Background
Scott and Ritterson were involved in an automobile accident at the intersection of Division Street and South State Street in Dover, Delaware, on September 24, 2001. Both parties claim to have had the right of way when they collided in the intersection. According to the police report prepared by Officer Gott, Plaintiff Scott "had been drinking but was not impaired." Further, the report states that Scott "passed several field sobriety tests at [the] scene." Scott testified at his deposition that he did not have any drugs or alcohol on the day of the accident.
Police Report, Defendant's Exhibit A.
Id.
Plaintiff contends that any evidence relating to his alleged consumption of alcohol on the day of the accident should be excluded as irrelevant or prejudicial. Defendant however asserts that evidence of Plaintiff's alcohol consumption is relevant to the jury's determination of liability and proximate cause. Further, Defendant contends that the evidence of prior drinking should be admissible for the jury's assessment of Plaintiff's credibility. Defendant points to prior case law in which Delaware courts have admitted evidence of alcohol consumption.
Discussion
Delaware Rule of Evidence 402 provides that only relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant evidence is defined as that evidence which tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. However, even if evidence is relevant, it still may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect or the possibility that it will confuse the jury.
In Laws v. Webb, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Superior Court admitting evidence of the plaintiff's alcohol consumption, because the trial court concluded the evidence was relevant to the degree of plaintiff's negligence and could assist in the jury's determination of plaintiff's perceptive abilities at the time of the accident. Laws arose from an incident in which a motor vehicle driven by defendant Webb struck a pedestrian, plaintiff Laws. The Court further found that any prejudice to the plaintiff was outweighed by the defendant's need to have the jury understand as much as possible about the background of a potential proximate cause of the accident. However, the Court excluded evidence of plaintiff's blood alcohol content reading and statements that she had a drinking problem, concluding that the prejudicial effect and potential for juror confusion would outweigh any probative value. The Court concluded that because the defendant and another witness testified regarding Laws' erratic behavior on the night of the accident, Laws' perceptive ability was directly in issue and relevant to her degree of fault.
658 A.2d 1000, 1010 (Del. 1995).
Id. at 1010.
In Rachko v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., the Superior Court again permitted evidence of the plaintiff's alcohol consumption to be admitted to show plaintiff's ability to perceive and react in a case regarding an auto accident. The plaintiff admitted having one glass of wine before the accident, but there was other testimony that he may have had more than one glass. In addition, there was a dispute over whether plaintiff's conduct after the accident was the result of his injuries or his prior alcohol consumption.
1997 Del. Super. LEXIS 541, *4.
The jury must assess the credibility of the parties in making its determination of liability. The ability of the parties to perceive and react to the auto accident is relevant to the jury' s determination of liability. In this case, Plaintiff contends he had a yellow light and Defendant contends he did. In his answer Defendant asserted as an affirmative defense Plaintiff's negligence in operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs as a proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, evidence of Plaintiff's consumption of alcohol prior to the accident is relevant to the question presented to the jury.
See Law v. Gallegher, 197 A. 479 (Del. 1938).
The Court must now assess whether the prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighs its probative value. It appears to be important for the jury to consider the whole picture in making its determination. That picture includes evidence that the Plaintiff had consumed alcohol sometime prior to the accident. Any prejudicial effect this testimony may have is greatly outweighed by the need for the jury to have all of the information in making its assessment of negligence and proximate cause.
Because the evidence regarding Plaintiff's alcohol consumption prior to the accident is relevant and the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, Defendant may introduce such evidence. That is, the investigating officer and other fact witnesses may testify as to Plaintiff's drinking prior to the accident or admissions by the Plaintiff with respect to his consumption of alcohol on the day of the accident. However, the police report itself may not be admitted as evidence of Plaintiff's consumption of alcohol.
IT IS SO ORDERED.