In May of 2013, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided a case that involved a Kentucky car v. truck accident case where the jury decided for the defendant but on appeal, the appellate court reversed citing reversible errors and remanding it back down to the lower court for a new trial. (See Smith v. Turner, 2013 WL 2359726 (Ct. App. Ky. 2013)). The trial took a few days. The Kentucky car v truck accident occurred on February 5, 2008. The plaintiff alleged that she was driving when she heard a loud pop and then almost immediately a grain truck traveling toward her veered into her lane. Id. The popping sound plaintiff heard was the inner part of the rim on the front driver’s side of the truck breaking into two pieces. The female plaintiff was severely injured in this Kentucky car v truck accident. Plaintiff’s Kentucky car v truck accident attorney alleged that the defendant had knowledge of the fault rim when they concealed it. Defendant denied it.
During trial it came out that the truck was a 1984 truck acquired by the defendant in 1993. The defendant did not keep daily inspection records or records of its inspector qualifications. There was an inspection report completed eight months prior to the car accident that was introduced into evidence over the objection of the defendant’s attorney. Also introduced into evidence was the fact that three months prior to the accident the truck had a tube replaced on the rim that ultimately failed. Also at trial it was shown that the truck was registered with a lower gross vehicle weight rating that if it had had the right gross vehicle weight rating that the driver would have had to have had a commercial driver’s license, which the driver at the time of the Kentucky car accident did not have.
On appeal, the plaintiff’s Kentucky car v truck accident lawyer presented seven alleged errors and arguments. One of the arguments was that the trial court erred in admitting the inspection report that was not sufficiently authenticated or reliable and did not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Id. The court looked at KRE 803(6) the business records hearsay exception and KRE 901(11) self-authentication of business records to see if there was reversible error. Id.
Upon review the appellate court agreed with the plaintiff’s Kentucky car v truck accident lawyer that the record prepared by the defendant was untrustworthy. There were a few errors on the report to begin with. And a few omissions. Also, the photographs presented were taken well after the accident were not of the same truck and were of trucks more well maintained and newer than the truck in question. Id. The appellate court looked at KRE 402 which proved in part that with some exceptions, all relevant evidence is admissible. But, relevant evidence may nevertheless, be inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” (cites omitted) The court agreed that the photographs were admitted in error.
The court also looked at the other five arguments plaintiff made in trying to get this Kentucky car v truck accident case reversed. The court found some of the arguments reversible and others not. But, in the end, the court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The court gave the lower court guidance on how to handle a few of the issues preserved on appeal.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky Car v Truck Accident Case, please call and speak to a Kentucky Car v Truck Accident lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!