Trageser v. St. Joseph Health Center

3 Citing cases

  1. Davolt v. Highland

    119 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that absolute certainty was not required to establish causation where an attempted spinal cord decompression did not resolve plaintiff's symptoms

    We afford the trial court broad discretion in admitting or excluding videotape evidence. Trageser v. St. Joseph Health Ctr., 887 S.W.2d 635, 636 (Mo.App.W.D. 1994). The trial court's "exercise of such discretion will not be set aside on appeal unless the injustice of excluding it is substantial and glaring.

  2. Clark v. Cantrell

    332 S.C. 433 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Holding indirect evidence that plaintiff/decedent was not wearing a seatbelt was not inadmissible, but the court correctly instructed the jury it should not consider the seatbelt evidence in its deliberations

    1995) (affirming admission of computer-generated animations where they illustrated expert's theory and noting importance that reconstructions be "identical or very similar to the scene to have probative value"); Pino v.Gauthier, 633 So.2d 638, 652 (La.Ct.App. 1993), writdenied, 634 So.2d 858 (La. 1994) (computer simulation videotape properly excluded as prejudicial where it portrayed outcomes favorable only to the proponent of the evidence); Commercial Union v.Boston Edison Co., 412 Mass. 545, 591 N.E.2d 165, 168 (1992) (computer model admissible based, in part, on accuracy of input); Richardson v. State Hwy. Transp. Comm'n, 863 S.W.2d 876, 881-82 (Mo. 1993) (affirming exclusion of computer simulation of accident because simulation not conducted under substantially similar conditions to those at the time of the accident); Bray v.Bi-State Development Corp., 949 S.W.2d 93, 99 (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) (computer-generated chart admitted because it was accurate and reflected expert's testimony); Trageser v. St. JosephHealth Ctr., 887 S.W.2d 635, 636-37 (Mo.Ct.App. 1994) (animated videotape inadmissible where it did not accurately represent what it purported to depict); Kudlacek v. Fiat S.p.A., 244 Neb. 822, 509 N.W.2d 603, 617 (1994) (affirming admission of computer video simulation, in part, based on its conformity to actual dimensions of automobile, marks on roadway, speed, and angle at which vehicle left the roadway); People v. McHugh, 124 Misc. 12d 559, 476 N.Y.S.2d 721, 723 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) (computer reenactment permissible if it "fairly and accurately" reflects oral testimony and aids jury's understanding of the issue); Statev. Clark, 101 Ohio App.3d 389, 655 N.E.2d 795, 813 appealdenied, 72 Ohio App.3d 1548, 650 N.E.2d 1367 (1995) (computer simulation of crime scene properly admitted, in part, where it was based on actual dimensions of crime scene and relied on police calculations); Deffinbaugh v. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n, 67 Ohio App.3d 692, 588 N.E.2d 189, 193-94 appeal denied, 55 Ohio St.3d 703, 562 N.E.2d 894 (1990) (computer simulations p

  3. Harmon v. Hamilton

    903 S.W.2d 610 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that "[t]he trial court was required to describe the road with some particularity. There was no dispute in the evidence about the general location of the road. . . . The real issue was whether Respondents were entitled to a prescriptive easement, not the location of the roadway"

    In particular, the granting or denial of the drastic remedy of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and our review is limited to whether that discretion has been abused. Trageser v. St. Joseph Health Center, 887 S.W.2d 635, 638 (Mo.App.W.D. 1994). Mistrials are reserved for situations in which the error is so grievous that the prejudice cannot be removed any other way.