Christopher Berrier claimed, along with his for-hire medical experts, that his back injuries were solely the result of falling on a treadmill at a fitness club. The appeals court reversed because the trial court did not allow the defendant to question experts over Berrier’s previous “back injuries from playing football, a car accident and a fall down seven stairs at work.” (Reliable Development Corp. d/b/a The Fitness Barn v. Christopher Berrier, Jul. 31; AP, Aug. 2). Dr. Linda Stewart had testified that Berrier had absolutely no problem with his back before the date of the accident, so one can see the prejudice in not permititng cross-examination on this point.
$9 million back injury verdict tossed in Indiana
Christopher Berrier claimed, along with his for-hire medical experts, that his back injuries were solely the result of falling on a treadmill at a fitness club. The appeals court reversed because the trial court did not allow the defendant to question experts over Berrier’s previous “back injuries from playing football, a car accident and a […]
3 Comments
This is a notoriously common wedge for plaintiffs in personal injury cases: to what extent are their “injuries” the result of the claimed harm, and to what extent are they the result of prior accidents, pre-existing conditions and natural deterioration of the human body? Neither medicine nor law can quantify these questions precisely. That means that aside from general uncertainty, the cost of litigation on these issues is high. The German system of attaching statutory dollar figures to various body parts is one solution. Another might be statutory limits on pain and suffering, which is the great unknown figure that makes so many of these cases wild cards. Yet another would be the personal restraint of the individual, who, knowing he’s wrecked his back already playing football, wouldn’t file a suit blaming the fitness center for back problems. But I realize that’s asking a lot.
But even under our current system, the Indiana trial court clearly got it wrong here: defendants are always entitled to inquire into areas that create doubt about whether plaintiff has met the burden of proof.
I should amend that last sentence to, always entitled to inquire into areas like prior injuries as a way of creating doubt.
The court basically granted the plaintiff the gimme that the only possible source of his injury was the fall from the treadmill. The defense was prohibited from exploring the possibility that his injury was the result of some other activity for which there was not a ready defendant or deep pocket.
The court did cite the priniciple that the defendant could not reduce liability by noting the plaintiff had an increased susceptibility for injury (from prior injuries). But this still should not preclude defense from postulating that all injury came from a source other than the treadmill. The court has excluded that injury could be from any other source than by the plaintiff; this is before it ever goes to jury.