Evidence of Fleeing the Scene Remains Inadmissible to Prove Negligence or Damages
06/06/2025
White v. James, No. 1070, 2024 Md. App. LEXIS 868 (Spec. App. Nov. 7, 2024)
The Appellate Court of Maryland, in one of its recent
opinions White v. James, addressed the admissibility of evidence of
fleeing the scene and affirmed that Maryland case law is clear on the subject -
post-accident conduct is inadmissible to prove negligence or damages.
The facts of the case are as follows: Jacqueline Naomi James
and Gregory Alexander White, II were both driving northbound on the Baltimore
Washington Parkway when White collided with James, pushing her vehicle into a
ditch. White pulled over, briefly got out of his vehicle, and then proceeded to
drive away. White admitted fault, and the only issue at trial was damages.
and Gregory Alexander White, II were both driving northbound on the Baltimore
Washington Parkway when White collided with James, pushing her vehicle into a
ditch. White pulled over, briefly got out of his vehicle, and then proceeded to
drive away. White admitted fault, and the only issue at trial was damages.
Prior to trial, White sought to prohibit the admittance of
evidence of prior traffic violations and evidence that he fled the scene, both
as unfairly prejudicial. The trial court granted White’s motion as to the
traffic violations but left open the issue of his fleeing the scene: “there is
some relevance that is not outweighed by the issue of the impact that it had in
terms of distress on the Plaintiff.”
At trial, Ms. James’ counsel raised White’s fleeing the
scene on five separate occasions. Counsel for White objected twice. James’
counsel also, on two occasions, raised the fact that White had liability
insurance, and counsel objected once. Following trial, the jury awarded James
$100,000 in damages.
White then filed a motion for new trial, which was denied.
This appeal followed.
The Court addressed three issues raised by White:
1.
Did the trial court err in finding that fleeing
the scene was relevant to the issue of damages when the only issue at trial was
damages?
2.
Did the trial court err in finding that
admitting evidence of fleeing the scene was not unfairly prejudicial pursuant
to Md. Rule 5-403?
3.
Was the mention of liability insurance
prejudicial to the jury’s assessment of damages?
The Court addressed the first two issues simultaneously and held
that the trial court should have prohibited evidence of White’s fleeing the
scene because Maryland case law is clear that evidence of fleeing the scene of
an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence or damages.
However, the Court offered no further relief to Appellant (White)
as the trial court sustained objections on fleeing the scene. In all other instances
where fleeing the scene and liability insurance were mentioned, they were not
objected to, and thus, the issues were not preserved for appellate review.
For evidence to be admissible it must be relevant and not
unfairly prejudicial. Per Md. Rule 5-403, evidence is unfairly prejudicial and
inadmissible if the danger of prejudice outweighs its relevance. Maryland
courts have found that whether or not an individual attempts to flee the scene
of an accident often has no relevancy to the injuries or emotional distress
another party suffers in the accident. Hendrix v. Burns 205 Md. App. 1
(2012), Alban v. Fiels, 210 Md. App. 1 (2013). In these cases, the award
of damages was limited to physical injury, emotional distress as it related to
physical injury and fright from the impending accident. Even if fleeing the
scene is relevant, it is often inadmissible as unfairly prejudicial as it tends
to evoke a strong reaction from the jury.
White v. James illustrates how post-accident conduct is
irrelevant and/or unfairly prejudicial when a defendant has already admitted
fault and underscores the importance of timely objections by one’s attorney.
- Cailey Duffy, Associate
