Grimes v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance
1 Fed. R. Serv. 600, 73 F.R.D. 607, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17722 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motion picture depicting an injured plaintiff's daily activities is admissible to demonstrate the nature and extent of damages if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Even if such a film is considered hearsay assertive conduct, it may be admitted under the residual exception if it is trustworthy, highly probative, and proper notice is given to the opposing party.
Facts:
- Thomas I. Grimes suffered a personal injury in an industrial accident.
- To demonstrate the impact of his injuries, Grimes created a 25-minute soundless film.
- One part of the film depicted Grimes performing daily activities in and around his home, including scenes with his daughter, his quadriplegic brother, driving a car, loading a gun, and operating a fishing reel.
- Another part of the film showed Grimes performing a Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test and a range-of-motion prosthetic device test.
- The defendant, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, had produced television commercials advertising its safety services.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Thomas I. Grimes filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendant Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
- Prior to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking a pretrial ruling from the court on the admissibility of a film he created and two television commercials produced by the defendant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is a 'day-in-the-life' motion picture depicting an injured plaintiff's daily activities and clinical tests admissible to show the nature and extent of damages, despite objections that it is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, and hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Plummer, Senior District Judge.
Yes, in part. A motion picture showing an injured plaintiff's daily activities is admissible if properly authenticated and if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 403. The court found that the film's scenes depicting Grimes's daily struggles and clinical tests are highly probative of his pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, illustrating the impact of the injury better than words alone. The court ruled this probative value outweighs any resulting prejudice. However, scenes created solely to evoke sympathy, such as those with Grimes's daughter and quadriplegic brother, are excluded as unfairly prejudicial. The court reasoned that while the film constitutes hearsay because it depicts assertive conduct intended to prove the extent of injury, it is admissible under the residual hearsay exception (FRE 803(24)) because it is trustworthy, more probative than other available evidence, and the plaintiff-actor and verifying witness are available for cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision provides a foundational framework for the admissibility of 'day-in-the-life' films, which have become a common form of demonstrative evidence in personal injury litigation. The court's application of the FRE 403 balancing test establishes a precedent for separating highly probative depictions of an injury's effects from content designed merely to elicit sympathy from the jury. Furthermore, the opinion's novel treatment of the film as hearsay (assertive conduct) that is nevertheless admissible under the residual exception provides a crucial analytical pathway for admitting such powerful, reliable, and necessary evidence.
