Minimal Property Damage and Personal Injury In Maryland

The defendants are always making the argument that minimal property damages equals no personal injury. For example how can the person inside the car be hurt when the car is hardly hurt. The argue has some persuasive value in spite of the fact that it ignores the human factor that people are not cars. I use the example in trial of going to the play ground and seeing children pushing children at play. The child falls get back up and the game continues. Well if you push an elderly person the force of the push would break the person in half. The same is true of people not in shape or turned in an odd way at the point of impact, or susceptible to injury due to pre-existing conditions. The list goes on depending upon the facts of your case. In any event the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether property damage photographs can be offered into evidence with out expert testimony to establish the relationship, if any, between property damage and personal injury. The Court in the matter of MASON v. LYNCH. 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 held "Courts have generally held that photographs and testimony, showing or describing vehicular damage or the nature of the impact, are relevant with respect to the personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident and, in the trial judge's discretion, are admissible." In this matter Plaintiff argued because greater vehicular damage does not result in greater personal injuries, and lesser vehicular damage does not result in lesser personal injuries, in every accident, there can be no correlation between vehicular damage and personal injuries; therefore, vehicular damage evidence is not relevant. However, the Court determined this is not the test for relevancy. Maryland Rule 5-401 defines “ relevant evidence” as follows: ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Courts, almost uniformly, have taken the position that there is in motor vehicle accident cases, as a matter of probability, a correlation between the nature of the vehicular impact and the severity of the personal injuries. As the plaintiff herself acknowledges in Morgan, “[t]here apparently exists among laypersons a belief ... that significant injuries are unlikely in the absence of substantial property damage.” Courts have generally taken the position that this belief is rooted in common sense. Moreover, in personal injury actions based on motor vehicle accidents, evidence, including photographs, of the accident scene and of the damage to the vehicles, is, within the trial court's discretion, admissible under Maryland law.
In sum, the trial court in the instant case did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs showing the damage to the plaintiff's automobile.