A Scene Photograph is Worth a Thousand Words: Even if it is Not the Actual Scene

In slip and fall cases, photographs are typically used to depict the condition of the loss location.  What happens when the photographs do not depict the actual condition?  In one Pennsylvania court, it apparently does not matter.

In Drum v. Dental Care R.E. Partnership, plaintiff alleged that she slipped on ice in the defendant’s parking lot.  Plaintiff produced photographs depicting standing rain water, but not ice that allegedly caused her accident.  Defendant moved to preclude plaintiff’s use of the photographs since they did not depict the conditions on the day of plaintiff’s accident.  The defendant argued that since it had not rained on the day of the accident, the photographs depicting standing rain water were not relevant, and they would mislead the jury as to the condition of the lot.  Plaintiff countered that the photographs of standing water evidenced the improper draining in the parking lot, which would have put the defendant on notice of the condition that led to the ice.

The court ruled that the plaintiff’s contention of improper drainage could not be exhibited in any way other than through the photographs and, as such, were relevant.  Further, the jury would not be misled as the defendant could clarify that the parking lot was not covered in standing water on the day of the accident.

Thus, pictures that inaccurately represent the condition of a plaintiff’s accident site may be admissible if they are used to support another aspect of a plaintiff’s case.  It is important to argue all possible bases for why such photographs should be precluded, so that you are not left standing in the rain (water).

Thanks to Colleen Hayes for her contribution to this post.