D.R. v. Santos Bakery, Inc.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident. D.R. was crossing the street when the side mirror of a Santos Bakery truck struck her. Wilson Villa-Tenmaza was driving the truck. D.R. was thirteen years old at the time, lost consciousness after the impact, and awoke at a hospital. The plaintiffs sued Santos Bakery and Villa-Tenmaza in state court, and the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. Trial was scheduled to begin June 5, 2023.

The parties filed motions in limine, which are requests for advance rulings about whether particular evidence may be presented at trial. Judge Parker also considered issues raised in letters from the parties.

Medical records

The defendants sought to exclude medical-record statements describing the truck as turning or moving at high speed and stating that D.R. was thrown or flipped after the impact. The plaintiffs sought to exclude statements saying that D.R. did not remember the accident. Each side challenged the reliability or source of the statements.

Judge Parker explained that medical records may qualify as business records, but statements by third parties within those records require a separate basis for admission. Although some statements might potentially fit the exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, the records did not identify who made the statements. Because the sources could not be evaluated or cross-examined, the court found the statements inadmissible hearsay and substantially more prejudicial than probative.

The court therefore precluded admission of the statements that the truck was turning or moving at high speed, that D.R. was thrown or flipped, and that D.R. did not remember what happened.

Police report

The parties agreed to redact statements Villa-Tenmaza made to the responding police officer. The plaintiffs separately sought to redact a diagram on the report’s last page. The diagram depicted the accident based on Villa-Tenmaza’s description rather than the officer’s personal knowledge.

The court ruled that the diagram was inadmissible hearsay and required it to be redacted before the police report was admitted into evidence.

Testimony about the absence of a ticket

The defendants indicated that they intended to call a police officer to testify that Villa-Tenmaza was not cited or ticketed at the scene. The plaintiffs argued that the absence of a citation had no relevance to negligence under New York law.

Judge Parker agreed that the absence of a citation or ticket had no probative value concerning negligence in this civil case. The court found that allowing the testimony could mislead the jury into believing that law enforcement had determined Villa-Tenmaza was driving safely. The testimony was therefore not permitted.

Suggestion of a damages amount

The plaintiffs asked to suggest a dollar amount to the jury for pain-and-suffering damages. The court noted that allowing lawyers to suggest a target amount is disfavored because jurors may give undue weight to the number presented by counsel.

The plaintiffs argued that D.R.’s young age and the relatively small economic damages justified an exception. They also argued that a New York statute allowing review of excessive awards protected against prejudice. The court rejected these arguments, explaining that D.R., her mother, and her doctor could provide evidence about her pain and suffering, and that a possible later new trial did not justify allowing potentially prejudicial statements in the first place.

The court ruled that plaintiffs’ counsel could not suggest a target dollar figure for pain-and-suffering damages.

Photograph of the truck

The defendants objected to a photograph of the Santos Bakery truck with a woman standing beside it. The plaintiffs argued that the woman was approximately D.R.’s height and that the image showed the truck’s proportions and the side mirror’s position.

The court found the photograph insufficiently probative because the woman’s height was unknown and her position did not reproduce where D.R. had been standing. The truck’s measurements and photographs without a person were available to show the truck’s appearance and proportions. Judge Parker also found that the image could confuse the jury and was somewhat prejudicial because it appeared that the woman was about to be struck by the mirror.

The court ruled that the photograph was substantially more prejudicial than probative and would not be admitted into evidence.

Disposition and effect

The order states that these rulings resolved the motions at ECF Nos. 46, 47, and 54, as well as the related issues addressed in the parties’ letters. The opinion is a pretrial evidence ruling and does not decide the defendants’ liability, the plaintiffs’ negligence claims, or damages.