Knowles v. Levan, 15 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. February 15, 2011)

As a matter of first impression before an appellate court, the Superior Court held that the admissibility of intoxication to illustrate how an accident occurred, when negligence was conceded, is an improper abuse of discretion by the trial court.

The appellant executor appealed a judgment by the Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Civil Division, (Pennsylvania) in favor of the appellees. The executor sought a new trial, claiming that evidence of his decedent's blood alcohol content and use of cocaine was improperly admitted. After the executor's decedent struck the appellees' vehicle in a head-on collision, the executor conceded liability and negligence on the decedent's behalf, and the case proceeded to trial on damages only. The executor claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine, thus, allowing the jury to hear that the decedent had ingested cocaine and alcohol prior to the accident. As a matter of first impression before an appellate court, the Superior Court held that the admissibility of intoxication to illustrate how an accident occurred, when negligence was conceded, was an improper abuse of discretion by the trial court, citing Warburton v. Eister, 37 Pa. D&C 3d 385, 387 (Northumberland County 1985) (holding that where liability is admitted, the lone issue is damages and there is no justification to admit into evidence any facts concerning the occurrence or causation of the accident as the defendant's admission of liability renders all such evidence irrelevant. "To allow evidence that it was defendant's fault because he was drunk adds nothing to the issue of how much plaintiff was injured. Such evidence may in fact only raise a new issue in the jury's mind; how much should defendant be punished for his drunk driving . . . .") The appellate court found that the evidence, coupled with the trial court's admonishment to the executor's counsel to inform the jury as to the legal limit for intoxication by alcohol, was improperly admitted. Despite the trial court's mistake, the verdicts were reasonable given the type of accident and injuries. Accordingly, the executor was not entitled to a new trial.

Case Law Alerts - 3rd Qtr 2011