Moffitt v. Miller

302 A.3d 1219

Colleen MOFFITT, Appellant v. Chris MILLER

No. 8 EDA 2023

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued August 31, 2023

Filed September 18, 2023

Daniel J. Siegel, Havertown, for appellant.

Jeffrey E. Tenthoff, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^*

OPINION BY PELLEGRINI, J.:

Colleen Moffitt (Moffitt) appeals from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) following a jury trial in this personal injury action filed against Chris Miller (Miller) arising from a motor vehicle accident. Moffitt challenges the trial court's evidentiary rulings including its allowance of testimony regarding her alcohol consumption before the accident, the court's decision not to issue several proposed jury instructions, as well as contending that the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We affirm.

I.

A.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On August 5, 2018, at 1:15 a.m., Miller's vehicle struck Moffitt as she attempted to cross East Lancaster Avenue (Route 30) in Downington on foot in the middle of the block as she walked home from a nearby bar. On March 4, 2019, Moffitt filed a complaint asserting one count of negligence seeking to recover damages for injuries and lost wages she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident.

Emergency room records showed that Moffitt's blood alcohol content (BAC) was .313% at the time of the incident. Prior to trial, motions in in limine were filed by both parties. The trial court denied Moffitt's motion to exclude all references to her alcohol consumption but granted Miller's motion in limine to preclude testimony from Moffitt's liability expert concerning the presence of "unmarked crosswalks" at the location of the accident.

B.

The case proceeded to a three-day trial on May 31, 2022, and the jury heard testimony from several witnesses including Moffitt; Miller; the police officer who responded to the scene, Officer Geoffrey Burkhart; Roy Pietrinferni, the bartender from the tavern; and Miller's expert witness, Charles Dackis, M.D. ¹

Moffitt testified that at the time of the incident she resided with her two adult daughters and was working at a diner as a waitress earning about $16,000 per year. During the day leading up to the accident, Moffitt attended an afternoon wedding where she drank two to three beers, returned to her apartment, drank two shots of vodka with her daughter and later went to a bar located across the street and down one block from her apartment. Moffitt went to the bar dressed in the same clothes that she wore to the wedding and was scheduled to work the next morning at 7:00 a.m. Moffitt recounted that she drank one-and-a-half beers at the bar, was feeling "normal" when she left and did not have any problems walking or talking. (N.T. Trial, 5/31/22, at 67).

Moffit explained that she chose to cross Lancaster Avenue (Route 30) at the location she thought was the most well-lit area which was in the vicinity where Lancaster Avenue (Route 30) was intersected by Beech Street, a one-way street. However, Beech Street is the entrance to the Beech Street parking lot at Lancaster Avenue. No vehicles can enter Lancaster Avenue from Beech Street; they can only enter the parking lot from Lancaster Avenue and exit the parking lot onto Wood Alley. Lancaster Avenue has no stop sign or other traffic control device in Miller's direction of travel.

Moffitt stated that before she stepped off the curb, she looked to the left and to the right for oncoming traffic and that she did not see any vehicles approaching from either direction. As Moffitt crossed the street, she was struck by Miller's car and landed on the road. Emergency personnel responded to the scene and she was taken to the hospital.

Moffitt went on to testify that she sustained a fracture to her right leg necessitating surgery and cuts and bruises around her head. She stayed at her sister's home for about a week to recover and used a walker for a month. Moffitt attended follow up appointments with her physician as well as physical therapy treatment. Although she still experienced some pain, she stated she was working full-time as of her last doctor's appointment in November of 2018. Regarding her eyesight, Moffitt testified that she is blind in her right eye but is able to see through her left eye wearing glasses. Moffitt indicated that although she had vision issues before the collision, her ophthalmologist advised that her retina "totally shifted" after it and performed surgery. ( Id. at 78). Moffitt averred that she was out of work for approximately two months and estimated her initial wage loss at $3,500.

Miller testified that as he was operating his motor vehicle eastbound on Route 30 on the night of the accident, he saw Moffitt on the sidewalk starting to cross the street. Miller did not slow down and continued to proceed forward because he was unsure of what Moffitt was going to do. ( See id. at 56-58). Miller explained that although he initially observed Moffitt on the sidewalk, he lost sight of her "because she disappeared ... that's how fast it happened." ( Id. at 58). The next time that he saw her, she was walking on the double yellow line.

Officer Burkhart testified that upon his arrival at the scene he noticed a strong odor of alcohol emanating from Moffitt's person and breath. She appeared very agitated and angry and "was yelling but not due to pain." (N.T. Trial, 6/02/22, at 5). Moffitt was cursing and directed negative comments towards him and the ambulance crew as they were trying to help her. Officer Burkhart recounted that Moffitt "crossed the road in a dark area and appeared to be extremely intoxicated when we arrived." ( Id. at 8). He testified that there is no crosswalk where Moffitt walked across the street and the closest crosswalk is located about half a block away from where the accident occurred. Officer Burkhart's understanding is that the accident was caused "because [Moffitt] was intoxicated and walking in front of a car." ( Id. at 11).

Roy Pietrinferni indicated that Moffitt drank one beer at the bar and purchased a six pack of beer to go. ( See N.T. Deposition, 4/18/22, at 11). Pietrinferni testified that Moffitt exhibited no visible signs of intoxication and described her condition as "fine." ( Id. at 12).

Dr. Dackis testified during voir dire that has been a psychiatrist for 40 years with a subspecialty in addiction, including alcohol and its effects. On cross-examination during voir dire , Dr. Dackis indicated that he does not have a degree in toxicology and that he has not spoken at any conferences on that subject, although he has taught courses in pharmacology. Dr. Dackis explained that his expertise lies in assessing the impact of a person's blood alcohol level on their intoxication and impairment. ( See N.T. Deposition, 2/28/22, at 16). The trial court allowed the jury to hear his testimony over objection by counsel for Moffitt.

Dr. Dackis testified that he reviewed Moffitt's hospital records which showed that her BAC was .313%, which is "a very, very elevated level, considering the fact that .08% is the legal level for drinking [while driving.] She was not acting normal. Her judgment was impaired. She was paranoid and she got into this accident." ( Id. at 38-39). Dr. Dackis opined that Moffitt was intoxicated to a point that impaired her ability to safely walk home and that her impairment contributed to the accident.

C.

On June 2, 2022, the jury issued its verdict finding each party 50 percent causally negligent and awarding Moffitt a lump sum of $8,500 in damages. Moffitt filed a motion for post-trial relief which the trial court denied on November 22, 2022, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral argument. In its opinion, the trial court stated its findings that it properly denied Moffitt's motion in limine to preclude evidence of her alcohol use on the day of the accident; Moffitt's challenge to Dr. Dackis’ testimony is meritless, as he was qualified to testify about her blood alcohol level and the effects of those levels on a person's behavior and conduct; it properly granted Miller's motion in limine to preclude testimony pertaining to "unmarked crosswalks"; the court's jury instructions were adequate and appropriate to the legal issues raised by the parties and it properly declined to give Moffitt's proposed non-standard charges; and the jury's decision to award damages totaling $8,500 is not against the weight of the evidence and was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances and all of the facts presented at trial. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 11/22/22, at 2-3, 5-7).

Judgment was entered on the verdict on December 15, 2022. Moffitt timely appealed and she and the trial court complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).

II.

A .

Moffitt first contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of her alcohol consumption before the accident. ² Moffitt maintains that Pennsylvania courts have consistently precluded the mention of alcohol use absent evidence of unfitness to function at the time of an accident because such testimony is extremely prejudicial.

It is well-settled that a blood alcohol level alone may not be admitted for the purpose of proving intoxication. There must be other evidence showing the actor's conduct which suggests intoxication establishing an impairment function. See , e.g. , Billow v. Farmers Trust Co. , 438 Pa. 514, 266 A.2d 92, 93 (1970) ; Fisher v. Dye , 386 Pa. 141, 125 A.2d 472 (1956). In this case, the trial court applied Coughlin v. Massaquoi , 642 Pa. 212, 170 A.3d 399 (2017), our Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on the issue.

Coughlin involved a personal injury action against a motorist who killed a pedestrian while he crossed the street and our Supreme Court considered the admissibility of evidence concerning the pedestrian's BAC, the same BAC as here — 313%. See Cou...