Opinion
HHDCV136042060S
02-24-2017
Walter Szumilas, Administrator of the Estate of Andrezej Jan Szumilas v. Thomas Leconche et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION IN LIMINE ENTRY #220
Cesar A. Noble, J.
The plaintiff, Walter Szumilas, Administrator of the Estate of Andrzej Jan Szumilas, has moved to preclude evidence of his decedent's failure to wear a motorcycle helmet at the time of the accident that resulted in his death and this lawsuit which begins evidence on February 28, 2017. The plaintiff argues that the failure is not probative of the issues of liability or damages. The plaintiff refers the court to a number of decisions by judges of the superior court that have precluded the failure to wear a helmet as either evidence of comparative negligence or a failure to mitigate damages. See e.g. Ruth v. Poggie, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. 52750 (November 22, 1993, Klaczak, J.) (10 Conn.L.Rptr. 412, ), Pinho ex rel. Estate of Pinho v. Daly, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV 000500895-S (May 3, 2001, Shapiro, J.) (2001 WL 576659).
The defendant, Lisa Lavado, responds that she is not offering the decedent's failure to wear a helmet as either comparative negligence--indeed there is no such special defense raised by the defendant--or mitigation of damages, but solely on the issue of causation. The defendant proffers that the plaintiff's decedent slid approximately 40 feet before coming into contact with her car and that the issue of whether the defendant was wearing a helmet is relevant as to whether the plaintiff's injuries, essentially death, were caused by the trauma associated with the impact and contact with the pavement rather than the later contact with the defendant's automobile. Thus, the defendant urges the court to permit evidence of the decedent's failure to wear a helmet on the grounds that it makes it more or less probable than it would be without the evidence that his death was caused by something other than contact with her car. Connecticut Code of Evidence, § 4-1. In the view of the defendant the evidence of the lack of a helmet goes to the issue of causation. Significantly, the defendant does not intend to offer an expert on this issue but suggests, without citation to authority, that a jury may nevertheless find it more likely than not that because he was not wearing a helmet the decedent's death may have been caused at the time of his fall from the motorcycle and slide on the pavement rather than the contact with the car. The court is not persuaded.
The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's decedent's failure to wear a helmet may have contributed to his death before coming into contact with the automobile is based on speculation. " Although it is the jury's right to draw logical deductions and make reasonable inferences from the facts proven . . . it may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation." Motzer v. Haberli, 300 Conn. 733, 743, 15 A.3d 1084 (2011). Where issues of causation are beyond the ordinary knowledge and experience possessed by a juror expert testimony is necessary. Bozelko v. Papastavros, 323 Conn. 275, 285, 147 A.3d 1023 (2016) (causation in legal malpractice requires expert); Boone v. William W. Backus Hosp., 272 Conn. 551, 573, 864 A.2d 1 (2005) (expert testimony required on whether administration of drug caused decedent's death as beyond common knowledge of lay persons). While expert testimony may not be necessary to establish causation if the evidence creates a probability so strong that a jury can form a reasonable belief without the aid of any expert opinion; Aspiazu v. Orgera, 205 Conn. 623, 631, 535 A.2d 338 (1987), the correlation between the lack of a helmet and the decedent's death does not present such a circumstance.
The consequences of the failure to wear a helmet depend on a number of factors including but not limited to the extent to which a qualified motorcycle helmet attenuates the impact, reduces the acceleration of the head within the helmet to below tolerance levels, whether the dynamics of a fall from a motorcycle involve a pavement-only head contact or involve a horizontal slide along the ground, the rotational or angular velocity values related to head movement as well as the change in velocity referable to the decedent's brain. See e.g., Piche v. Nugent, 436 F.Supp.2d 193, 205-8 (D.Me. 2006). The consequences of the decedent's failure to wear a helmet, in the absence of properly qualified expert testimony, is thus simply beyond the normal ken of the average juror. See Smiley v. Leonard, Docket No. 14071, 1994 WL 47675, at *6 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 16, 1994) (no error in failing to instruct jury to consider failure to wear a motorcycle helmet unless expert testimony on the issue was offered with respect to its relationship to plaintiff's damages.) Accordingly, and in light of the limited purpose theevidence is being offered by the defendant, the plaintiff's motion in limine is granted and the court precludes any evidence of the decedent's failure to wear a helmet.