Rawson v. Bradshaw

• Decision Date: 22 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-086,83-086
• Citation: 125 N.H. 94,480 A.2d 37
• Parties: Perley Dan RAWSON v. James Norman BRADSHAW.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 37

480 A.2d 37

125 N.H. 94

Perley Dan RAWSON v.James Norman BRADSHAW.

No. 83-086.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

June 22, 1984.

Law Offices of James J. Kalled, Ossipee (James B. Kazan, Alton, on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Wiggin & Nourie, Manchester (William S. Orcutt, Manchester, on brief, and Alan R. Kusinitz, Manchester, on the brief and orally), for defendant.

KING, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff, Perley Dan Rawson, brought an action against the defendant, James Norman Bradshaw, in superior court to recover for personal injuries, which he alleged resulted from a two-car, no-contact automobile accident.The plaintiff claims that he suffered neck injuries as a result of being forced off the road in order to avoid a collision with the defendant's vehicle.

After a trial lasting six days, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.The plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying him the right to introduce evidence of the defendant's intoxication at the time of the accident and in failing to instruct the jury adequately.We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which was granted by the Court(Bean, J.), leaving only the issues of causation and damages to be determined by the jury.In conjunction with this ruling, defense counsel moved to exclude from trial all evidence concerning the manner in which the defendant operated his vehicle, maintaining that such evidence was irrelevant as to the remaining issues in the case.The Court(Dalianis, J.), however, upon denying the defendant's motion, ruled that because the defendant denied the existence of a causal link between his negligence and the alleged injuries of the plaintiff, the jury was entitled to hear testimony concerning the plaintiff's observations, "[f]rom the moment he observed the defendant to the point where he went off the road and what his responses to [the defendant's actions] were."

Defense counsel further moved to exclude from trial all evidence of the defendant's alleged intoxication at the time of the accident, on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled, as requested, to enhanced damages based upon the defendant's alleged intoxication.The Court(Souter, J.) granted this motion.

Immediately prior to trial, the plaintiff moved to set aside that portion of the court's order which precluded him from introducing evidence of the defendant's intoxication.He argued that such evidence was relevant, despite the court's rulings on liability and enhanced damages, in view of the defendant's denial of causation--a denial of the allegation that the plaintiff was faced with a situation which required him to make the abrupt maneuvers which resulted in his injuries.

The Court(Dalianis, J.) denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside its earlier order, stating "that the plaintiff's summary judgment on the point of liability foreclosed consideration of this issue....It would have been allowed in the trial, probably over objection, but since the plaintiff chose this course originally, the court felt that he should be held to it."

At trial, Rawson testified as to the circumstances of the accident which allegedly resulted in his injuries.Bradshaw did not attend the trial, and no witness testified to contradict the account of the accident related by the plaintiff.

Rawson testified that, while traveling southbound on Route 150, in South Hampton, he observed the Bradshaw vehicle, which was traveling northbound, veer into his travel lane.The vehicle then "shot back" into the northbound lane, finally returning to the southbound lane where it approached him at a high rate of speed "on a four-wheel drift"--"[i]t just kept rocking and rolling."Rawson claimed that he immediately stepped hard on his brakes and, out of instinct, "cut to the right," striking his head on the steering wheel, before managing to bring his vehicle to an abrupt stop.Although the Bradshaw vehicle came within an "eyelash" of hitting his vehicle, Rawson testified that he managed to avoid actual contact.Rawson further testified that when he turned his head to ascertain the fate of the Bradshaw vehicle, which had careened off the highway, he felt an extreme pain in his neck as if something had snapped.He nonetheless proceeded to go to the aid of Bradshaw.

Upon cross-examination and throughout the course of the entire trial, defense counsel continually attacked the plaintiff's credibility and thereby his account of the accident, maintaining that the defendant's negligence could not possibly have caused the plaintiff's alleged injuries since the plaintiff, in fact, simply "saw something happening, slowed down and brought his pickup truck ... to a stop," a series of events providing no "mechanism of injury."

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that, in light of the repeated attempts by defense counsel to impeach his account of the accident--his observations and reactions (testimony which the court had ruled relevant and admissible on the issue of causation), evidence of the defendant's intoxication remained relevant and should have been admissible to substantiate the plaintiff's testimony.

The plaintiff argues that a jury would have been more likely to credit his contention that he was faced with an out-of-control vehicle if it had known that the defendant was intoxicated.Such knowledge would also have made more believable his contention that he was forced, in order to avoid a collision with the defendant's vehicle, to make abrupt maneuvers which resulted in his cervical injuries.

We recognize that the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony in this case was vital to the jury's resolution of the issue of causation.Although the trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant's liability, the court never informed the jury of the facts underlying this determination.The jury was never furnished with a description of Mr. Bradshaw's negligent conduct by the court but rather, simply informed that "legal fault has already been determined."

The sole description of the defendant's conduct was furnished to the jury through the testimony of the plaintiff, whose credibility was repeatedly attacked.The jury was left to decide whether the defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff's injuries based solely upon the plaintiff's testimony- --his recitation of his observations of the defendant's conduct and his reactions to that conduct.

In light of the procedural aspects of this case and the repeated attempts by defense counsel to impeach the plaintiff's credibility, and thereby his account of the accident, we hold that the plaintiff should have been allowed to introduce evidence of the defendant's intoxication, not for the purpose of enhancement of damages, but to explain and make credible his testimony as to the erratic behavior of the defendant's vehicle just prior to the accident and his resultant need to resort to abrupt maneuvers, in a panic situation, to avoid a possible collision.SeeState v. Dustin, 122 N.H. 544, 546, 446 A.2d 1186, 1188(1982)("Evidence is relevant if it tends in any way to establish a proposition which is of consequence in an action.");State v. Ebelt, 121 N.H. 143, 144, 427 A.2d 29, 30(1981)("Relevant evidence is evidence that tends 'to establish a fact of consequence to the determination of the action.' ")(quotingWelch v. Bergeron, 115 N.H. 179, 182, 337 A.2d 341, 343(1975)).

Any resultant prejudice to the defendant which might have been caused by the admission of such evidence, would, in this instance, have been minimal and clearly outweighed by the probative value of the evidence in resolving the disputed issues of credibility and causation.SeeState v. Dustin, 122 N.H. at 547, 446 A.2d at 1188;Rogers v. Rogers, 80...