Jake Franchi

The plaintiff, Sabrina Maher, sued the defendant, Marija Kiric, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which Maher, riding her bicycle, was struck by Kiric’s car.

Maher claimed she suffered permanent serious impairment, including physical, cognitive, and psychiatric injuries.

The court considered whether Maher’s claims for non-pecuniary loss and health care expenses were barred by the Insurance Act threshold.

After reviewing the evidence, including medical records and expert testimony, the court found that Maher did not sustain a permanent serious impairment as a result of the accident.

The court dismissed her claims for non-pecuniary loss and health care expenses.

The court considered whether the defendant could question experts about the effect of bicycle helmet use on the plaintiff’s injuries, where no expert had opined on the issue in their reports.

The court held that, in the absence of expert evidence specific to the case, statistical evidence about helmet efficacy was inadmissible and potentially prejudicial.

The defendant was precluded from questioning experts on this issue, and the jury would be instructed accordingly.

This endorsement addresses two issues regarding the formulation of jury questions in a civil trial: (1) whether the jury should be asked to provide particulars for its answers, and (2) the appropriate language to use in causation and damages questions.

The court reviews relevant case law and concludes that the disadvantages of requiring particulars outweigh the advantages in this case, and that consistent, clear language should be used in the jury questions, specifically the phrase "caused by" for all damages questions.

This endorsement addresses two pre-trial evidentiary issues: (1) the use of a demonstrative aid (a chronological chart) in the plaintiff’s opening address to the jury, and (2) the order in which the plaintiff’s witnesses will be called.

The court allows the use of the demonstrative aid in the opening address, provided the term “head injury” is removed due to its potential to prejudice the jury.

The court declines to order the plaintiff to testify first, leaving the order of witnesses to the plaintiff’s discretion, but reserves the right to revisit the issue if trial efficiency or fairness is compromised.