Crane v. Clark
Appellant Peter Crane (Crane) was a passenger in a taxi that was rear‑ended by a station wagon driven by respondent Colby Clark (Clark), an accident for which Clark admitted liability. Crane, who had a preexisting back condition, introduced evidence that in the three years following the accident he spent over $46,000 for medical care, and that future medical expenses could run over $2 million. Crane also sought damages for past and future pain and suffering, the upshot of which was a closing argument that sought millions of dollars in damages. Following brief deliberations, the jury awarded Crane $10,345, and the trial court denied his motion for new trial.
Crane appeals, primarily asserting three claims of evidentiary error: (1) admitting evidence that contradicted unresponded-to requests for admission that had been deemed admitted; (2) admitting photographs of the taxi and the station wagon; and (3) admitting evidence that did not meet the standard for expert testimony. He also asserts error in the denial of the new trial. We conclude that none of Crane’s contentions has merit, and we affirm.
Comments on Crane v. Clark