The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

During trial, the court admitted into evidence three videotapes. The court viewed them before admitting them. D challenged P's a 'Day in the Life' film. D argued that P's 'Day in the Life' videotape was unduly prejudicial within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 403 and thus inadmissible. D also argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a videotape which shows a car like the one involved in the accident approaching an inclined ramp, becoming airborne, and landing. The film shows the jump three times, each time from a different angle. P offered the videotape not as a recreation but as a demonstration of certain principles. The district court viewed the film and then admitted it for this limited purpose. The district court instructed the jury that: “The film is not being introduced for the purpose of attempting to recreate the accident involved in this case. The Plaintiff does not contend that the film reenacts the accident. . . . The film is introduced only to demonstrate certain physical principles. . . . You're instructed not to consider this film as a reenactment of the accident.” D also argued that the district court erred when it allowed P to show a videotape to the jury during closing argument. The videotape was edited to show portions of the 'Day in the Life' tape, the demonstration tape, and a portion of a taped deposition of one of P's doctors. The court viewed it and admitted it. P got the verdict and D appealed, in part, on the admissions of the tapes.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.