Videos And Photos To Demonstrate Scientific Principals Involved - Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Product Liability Lawyer - Accident Attorney Hawaii

Honolulu Products Liability Lawyer Bill Lawson

Law Office of William H. Lawson

What We Do at Accident Lawyer Hawaii - video Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney - Claims We Handle Personal Injury Attorney Hawaii results Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney - Call us now

Awards and Honors


AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubbell
Martindale Hubbell - AV rated lawyer - Best Rating Possible


Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum


AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney
AVVO Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney, 10 of 10


ATLA Top 100 Trial Lawyers
ATLA Top 100


5.0 of 5.0 top rated by Lawyers.com
Lawyers.com - Rated 5.0 out of 5.0 - Top Rating Possible


National Trial Lawyers - Top Lawyer
National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers


Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Million Dollar Advocates Forum


American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2014


Marquis' Who's Who
Marquis' Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Law


AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer
AVVO Clients' Choice Personal Injury Lawyer


American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013
American Society of Legal Advocates - Top 100 - 2013



Defective Products - Table of Contents

Videos & Photos To Demonstrate Scientific Principals

Products Liability Cases In Hawaii



The following extended quotation is taken from the case of Lau v. Allied Wholesale, Inc., 82 Hawai'i 428 at 434-437, 922 P.2d 1041 at 1047-1050 (Hi. App. 1996). This legal authority demonstrates that DVDs and video clips may be admissible because (1) these videos are not an attempt to "recreate" the accident- but rather (2) these videos depict various concepts and principles described by the experts which were involved in the accident. An in camera inspection before showing the video to the jury is usually required.

 

"Generally, the decision to admit various types of demonstrative evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court. Yap v. Controlled Parasailing of Honolulu, Inc., 76 Hawai'i 248, 256, 873 P.2d 1321, 1329 (1994) (citing Monlux v. General Motors Corp., 68 Haw. 358, 363, 714 P.2d 930, 933 (1986)). Videotapes depicting a particular incident can be used as demonstrative evidence at trial. A. Bowman, Hawai'i Rules of Evidence Manual § 901-2F(1) (1990); see also Yap, supra, (depicting tests of a chair used for parasailing); Loevsky v. Carter, 70 Haw. 419, 773 P.2d 1120 (1989) (depicting a series of motorcycle rides).

 

"The controlling authority in this jurisdiction regarding the admissibility of videotape evidence is the Loevsky case... A careful reading of Loevsky reveals that ... two issues were intended to address separate questions of admissibility. The first question is whether the videotape depicts a reenactment or reconstruction of an incident. The second relates to whether the tape shows tests or experiments explaining a scientific principle. We take a close look at the Loevsky case to clarify the analysis for this particular evidentiary problem.


"i. Preview of the videotape

As indicated above, the admission of demonstrative evidence is firmly lodged within the trial court's discretion. Therefore, before going into the specifics of the admissibility analysis, we reiterate the Hawai'i Supreme Court's admonition in Loevsky for the trial court to preview the contents of the videotape before ruling on its admissibility. "Where the admissibility of the contents of a visual recording is at issue in a judicial proceeding, we direct that [Hawai'i] trial courts in the future undertake their best efforts in attempting to view the subject visual recording prior to ruling on its admissibility." Loevsky, 70 Haw. at 424 n. 6, 773 P.2d at 1123 n. 6 (emphases added). Although the language used by the supreme court falls short of making the preview an absolute requirement, we believe that to be able to reach the correct decision on admissibility the trial court must preview the contents of any film or videotape offered in evidence.


"ii. Reconstruction of the incident

The Loevsky court indicates that when a videotape depicts an experiment reconstructing a particular incident, the videotape will only be admissible if there is a showing that the essential elements of the depicted experiment are substantially similar to the incident it purports to reenact. Loevsky, 70 Haw. at 427, 773 P.2d at 1125. In other words, for videotape evidence to be admissible to show a reconstruction experiment, its contents must be substantially similar to the actual incident... Although not admissible as a reenactment, the videotape may still be admissible for another purpose.


"iii. Explanation of scientific principles

The Hawai'i Supreme Court stated that:

'Films or videotapes of experiments by an accident reconstructionist, physicist, engineer, or other witness qualified as an expert on the cause of accidents, offered merely to illustrate the principles used in forming an opinion, do not require strict adherence to the facts and are admissible in evidence, provided such films or tapes are not misleading in and of themselves and provided it is made clear that they are offered only as illustrations of the principles involved.' Loevsky, 70 Haw. at 428, 773 P.2d at 1126 (quoting 3 C. Scott, Photographic Evidence § 1317 (2d ed. Supp. 1987)) (emphasis and citations omitted). Thus, a filmed or videotaped experiment is relevant as long as it is offered to illustrate principles used in forming an opinion. Its admissibility depends on whether 'it is misleading' and not on whether its contents are 'substantially similar' to the incident at issue. Id. The question of whether the videotape's contents are 'misleading' essentially involves the HRE Rule 403 inquiry regarding whether the videotape's 'probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury....'"

 

"The determination of whether a 'veiled attempt' at a reenactment existed invites a comparison between the contents of the videotape and the actual incident. The comparison, however, focuses on the differences, instead of the similarities, between the incident at issue and the activity depicted on the videotape. The first step is to identify the logical inferences that the visual presentation creates. The trial court must then look at those aspects of the videotape's contents that are different from the incident at issue to determine whether the differences present a flaw in the logical inference created by the videotape presentation. It is this flawed reasoning that jurors may overlook because of the 'drama of the filmed event[,]' resulting in the jurors being misled. Id. Admittedly, this type of determination is not easy. 'Scientific principles, when demonstrated in a fairly abstract way, are quite unlikely to be confused with the events on trial. The more troublesome cases, however, are ones ... where some principles of some kind may be demonstrated but in a fashion that looks very much like a recreation of the event that gave rise to the trial.' Id. at 264 n. 5.'"


Another recent case which discusses this issue is the case of Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co., 85 Hawai'i 336, 944 P.2d 1279, (Hawai'i 1997). In that case the Hawaii Supreme Court stated:

 

"The fact that the videotapes were not produced or offered as reconstructions of Tabieros's accident renders them no less potentially relevant... In this connection, we have previously recognized that '[f]ilms or videotapes of experiments by an ... engineer[ ] or other witness qualified as an expert on the cause of accidents, offered merely to illustrate the principles used in forming an opinion, do not require strict adherence to the facts and are admissible in evidence, provided such films or tapes are not misleading in and of themselves and provided it is made clear that they are offered only as illustrations of the principles involved.' Loevsky, 70 Haw. at 428, 773 P.2d at 1126 (quoting 3 C. Scott, Photographic Evidence § 1317 (2d ed. Supp.1987)) (emphasis in original). [FN27] [FN27 provides: 'The foregoing proposition was subject only to the caveat that "it is essential that the jury be carefully instructed as to the extent to which they can use and consider the films or videotapes." Loevsky, 70 Haw. at 428, 773 P.2d at 1126 (citing 3 C. Scott, Photographic Evidence § 1317 (2d. ed. Supp.1987)).']


The Federal Court rule parallels the Hawaii rule on this issue. In the case of Pandit v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 82 F.3d 376 (10th Cir. 1996), the Tenth Circuit stated:

 

"In Gilbert [Gilbert v. Cosco, 989 F.2d 399 (10th Cir.1993)], we explained generally as follows:

 

"As a general rule, the proponent seeking to admit out-of-court experiments into evidence must demonstrate a 'similarity of circumstances and conditions' between the tests and the subject of litigation. Jackson v. Fletcher, 647 F.2d 1020, 1027 (10th Cir.1981) [cites omitted]. 'The purpose of this rule is to prevent confusion of the jury.' Robinson, 739 F.2d at 1484 (citing Jackson, 647 F.2d at 1027). A recognized exception to this rule exists when the experiment merely illustrates principles used to form an expert opinion. In such instances, strict adherence to the facts is not required. Four Corners Helicopters, 979 F.2d at 1442 [Four Corners Helicopters v. Turbomeca, 979 F.2d 1434, (10th Cir.1992)]; Robinson, 739 F.2d at 1484; Brandt, 638 F.2d at 212 . See also Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 847 F.2d 1261 (7th Cir.1988). Therefore, experiments which purport to recreate an accident must be conducted under conditions similar to that accident, while experiments which demonstrate general principles used in forming an expert's opinion are not required to adhere strictly to the conditions of the accident. Furthermore, 'when experiments do not simulate the actual events at issue, the jury should be instructed that the evidence is admitted for a limited purpose or purposes.'

Robinson, 739 F.2d at 1484 (citing Brandt, 638 F.2d at 212); Bannister, 812 F.2d at 1270. 989 F.2d at 402..."

 

"As in Gilbert, the experiments [in this case] ultimately were used to assist an expert in demonstrating principles which formed the basis of his opinion. Kinderman testified he performed the experiments merely to demonstrate the basic principles underlying his opinion, and it is clear the court admitted them for the same limited purpose."

82 F.3d at 381-382


Accord: Gladhill v. General Motors Corp., 743 F.2d 1049, (4th Cir. (Md.) 1984) Randall v. Warnaco, Inc. 677 F.2d 1226 (8th Cir. (N.D.) May 10, 1982), appeal after remand 712 F.2d 1275 (8th Cir. 1983). Hence it appears that the Federal Court rule on this issue is the same as Hawaii's state court rule.

 

Facebook Company page for Accident Lawyer Hawaii - William H. Lawson LinkedIn Company page for Top Honolulu Personal Injury Attorney William H. Lawson Google+ page for Bill Lawson - HI's Best PI Law Firm




Accident Lawyer Hawaii

Law Office of
William H. Lawson

Century Square
1188 Bishop St. Suite 2902
Honolulu, HI 96813


New client hotline:
(808) 524-5300


Pearl City, Aiea and Waipahu:
(808) 671-7600


Main business phone:
(808) 528-2525


Directions to Honolulu office


Get a free consultation


HI accident news
and articles


Court cases re:
Hawaii accident law


Lawson Law
Scholarship 2017





Products Liability - Cases & Comment



Jones Act- maritime law and seaman cases



The Constitution Of The State Of Hawaii





Recent Personal Injury and Car Accident News


In the case of Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (Md., 2012), the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that pit bull owners and harborers have strict liability for attacks on humans by their dogs. Massachusettes had previously established a similar policy. Cute pit bulls? Not hardly. Historically the dogs were bred to be weapons. They regularly maim and kill. Some courts are finally holding that owners and harborers of this particular breed are required to compensate their victims when their pit bulls wrongfully injure or kill - without the traditional "one free bite".










Choose one of the 4 menus below:



There is NO CHARGE for sending your case information to our law firm. The information provided on this website is preliminary and informational ONLY. It is not legal advice. The use of our webpages does not establish an attorney-client relationship. This website is copyright 1999-2017 and the contents of this website are the property of Personal Injury Attorney William H Lawson. The Terms and Conditions of Use for this website and our Privacy Policy are available here for your consideration. All rights reserved.

Hawaii Defective Products Liability Attorney Lawyer

We thank you for visiting our site!