Middleton v. Palmer
1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3504, 601 S.W.2d 759 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a plaintiff's prior accidents, injuries, and claims is admissible when offered to show that the plaintiff's current physical condition was caused by a different event or to show statements inconsistent with their current position, not merely to suggest the plaintiff is 'claim-minded.'
Facts:
- On February 26, 1976, Linda Middleton and Ivan Maurice Palmer were involved in an automobile collision at a rural intersection in Kaufman County.
- Middleton was driving on a main highway, while Palmer was on a intersecting road with a stop sign.
- It is undisputed that Palmer came to a complete stop at the stop sign before the collision occurred.
- Middleton claimed she suffered neck and back injuries as a result of the collision with Palmer.
- Middleton had a prior accident in 1973 where she also sustained neck and back injuries.
- Less than three months after the accident with Palmer, Middleton was involved in another accident from which she also claimed neck and back injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Middleton filed a negligence lawsuit against Ivan Maurice Palmer in a Texas trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict finding Palmer not negligent and awarding Middleton zero damages.
- The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Palmer.
- Middleton filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Middleton (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, where Palmer was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the cross-examination of a personal injury plaintiff regarding prior similar injuries and related lawsuits constitute reversible error when offered to challenge the causation of the alleged injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Carver, Justice.
No. The cross-examination of a personal injury plaintiff regarding prior similar injuries and related lawsuits does not constitute reversible error when relevant to causation. While it is generally improper to admit evidence of prior claims merely to show a plaintiff is 'claim-minded,' an exception exists when the evidence is offered for another valid purpose. Here, the evidence was admissible to show that the plaintiff's current physical condition may not have been caused by the defendant's actions, but rather by a preexisting condition or a subsequent injury. Given that Middleton filed two separate lawsuits for similar neck and back injuries resulting from two accidents less than three months apart, the questions were justified to explore causation and potential inconsistencies in her claims, which would be receivable as admissions against interest.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between inadmissible character evidence and evidence admissible for an alternative purpose, such as proving causation. By permitting cross-examination on prior similar injuries and claims, the court provides a clear avenue for defendants to challenge a core element of a plaintiff's negligence claim. This decision solidifies the defense strategy of introducing a plaintiff's medical history to suggest alternative causes for alleged injuries, thereby making it more difficult for plaintiffs with pre-existing or subsequent injuries to prove their case.
