RATCLIFFE v. BRP US INC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEPHEN J. RATCLIFFE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:20-cv-00234-JAW
)
BRP U.S., INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANT BRP’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
MULTIPLE IMAGES OF PLAINTIFF’S POST-ACCIDENT INJURIES
In a product liability action involving a vehicle rollover and gruesome injury,
a defendant moves to exclude more than two post-injury photographs of the plaintiff’s
injured arm as unnecessarily cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. 	The plaintiff
objects and asks the court to consider photographic evidence on a photo-by-photo
basis. As the court does not have enough information about the other images, since
they have not been provided, to determine whether they will be admissible, the court
dismisses the motion in limine without prejudice.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 30, 2019, a utility terrain vehicle (UTV) driven by Stephen J. Ratcliffe
overturned, causing significant injuries. Compl. ¶ 15 (ECF No. 1). On July 2, 2020,
Mr. Ratcliffe brought product liability claims against both BRP U.S., Inc. (BRP), the
manufacturer; 	and 	Tidd’s 	Sport 	Shop, 	Inc. 	(Tidd’s), 	the 	distributor; 	asserting
negligence and strict liability claims against both, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 17-57.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In light of the upcoming trial date, on October 4, 2024, BRP filed a motion in
limine to preclude the Plaintiff from offering as evidence at trial more than two
photographs of the Plaintiff’s post-accident injuries. 	Def. BRP’s Mot. in Lim. No. 7
and Supporting Br. to Preclude Multiple Images of Pl.’s Post-Accident Injuries (ECF
No. 174) (Def.’s Mot.). 	On October 15, 2024, Mr. Ratcliffe objected to the motion,
arguing that photos of the injury are relevant to questions of causation and damages
and asking the Court to instead handle photographic evidence on a photo-by-photo
basis. 	Pl.’s Obj. to Def. BRP’s Mot. in Lim. No. 7 and Supporting Br. to Preclude
Multiple Images of Pl.’s Post-Accident Injuries (ECF No. 201) (Pl.’s Opp’n).
II. 	THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
A. 	BRP’s Motion to Preclude Multiple Post-Accident Images
To prevent unfair prejudice, BRP moves the Court to limit the Plaintiff to
presenting a maximum of two photographs of his injury at trial. 	Def.’s Mot. at 1.
After reciting the standards for relevance and admissibility pursuant to Federal
Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, BRP reminds the Court that the Plaintiff bears the
burden of proving admissibility in light of the balancing test set forth in Rule 403.
Id. at 2 (citing F ED. R. EVID. 403 (a court may exclude relevant evidence “if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence”)).
BRP concedes that photographs of Mr. Ratcliffe’s injury are relevant and
probative to his claim, id. at 1; however, it argues that the balance between probative
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
value and unfair prejudice required by Rule 403 “will be lost if the jury is inundated
with a flurry of post-accident injury photographs.” Id. at 2-3. “At some point,” BRP
avers, “dozens of post-accident injury photographs would be cumulative” and “their
probative value will be substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice for
depicting a gruesome open fracture and mangled skin and bone.” 	Id. at 3. 	If the
Court does not limit the introduction of such photographs, BRP posits the jury will
be “unnecessary[il]y distract[ed]” from “the actual, disputed issues” in this trial. Id.
Citing 	caselaw 	from 	other 	federal 	courts, 	BRP 	further 	asserts 	that
“[p]hotographs of a plaintiff’s post-accident injury are properly excluded as irrelevant
if the nature of a plaintiff’s injury is uncontested.” 	Id. (citing Thompson v. Polaris
Indus. Inc., No. 16-cv-2868, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83665, at *59-60 (D. Ariz. May 17,
2019)). 	The Defendant notes that the First Circuit has held that, even if evidence
helps inform disputed issues, a district court “can find its ‘untoward effects’ . . . to be
so weighty that the evidence should be excluded.” 	Id. at 4 (quoting Galarneau v.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 504 F.3d 189, 205 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting
Faigin v. Kelly, 184 F.3d 67, 80 (1st Cir. 1999))). 	Similarly, the Defendant collects
cases from outside the First Circuit in which federal courts have precluded the
introduction 	of 	graphic 	images 	as 	unfairly 	prejudicial 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	the
photographs will “induc[e] decision on a purely emotional basis.” Id. at 3 (citing, inter
alia, Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1085 (5th Cir. 1986)).
BRP first asserts that the nature of Plaintiff’s injury in the present case is not
contested, “which alone would be grounds to preclude the post-accident photographs
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
as irrelevant.” 	Id. at 4 (citing Thompson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83665, at *59-60).
BRP next concedes the photographs “may be of some relevance for assessing
causation,” but insists “[t]hat minimal relevance should not open the door to
unrestricted exhibition of injury photographs” because “[t]he images will evoke a
strong emotional reaction from jurors.” 	Id. 	The Defendant warns the court that,
because sympathy for an injured person cannot be the basis for liability, “[t]he
‘untoward effects’ of the pictures of the gruesome injuries are ‘weighty’ enough to
warrant exclusion.” Id. (citing Galarneau, 504 F.3d at 205).
BRP concludes that “[t]here is no need, beyond shock value, to allow any more”
than two post-accident injury photographs from the Plaintiff and asks the Court to
limit the introduction of such photographs from each side accordingly. Id. at 4-5.
B. 	Stephen J. Ratcliffe’s Opposition to BRP’s Motion to Exclude
Multiple Post-Accident Images
Mr. Ratcliffe objects to the Defendant’s proposed limitation of photographic
evidence of the injury to two photographs, arguing that BRP admitted in its motion
that the proffered number is “arbitrary” and the Court should thus deny the motion.
Pl.’s Opp’n at 1. The Plaintiff quotes further “key admissions” from the Defendant’s
motion, which it argues “should be dispositive of this matter: (1) ‘the nature and
severity of Plaintiff’s injury is, no doubt, probative of the value of any potential
damages award’ and (2) the photos ‘may be relevant to assessing causation and the
mechanism of the injury.’” 	Id. (emphasis added by the Plaintiff). 	In light of these
admissions, Mr. Ratcliffe calls the Defendant’s motion to limit the Plaintiff to only
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
two photographs “an outrageous premise” that should not be entertained by the
Court. Id. at 1-2.
Mr. Ratcliffe further indicates that he “has no intent or desire to parade
numerous post-accident photos to g[]ild the lily, to submit duplicative or cumulative
evidence to the jury, or to waste precious jury time on such issues.” 	Id. at 2.
Nevertheless, he asserts that limiting the Plaintiff to two post-injury photographs
would 	“unfairly 	prejudice 	the 	plaintiff’s 	case-in-chief” 	and 	“sets 	a 	dangerous
precedent rewarding the defense for effectively trying to micromanage how plaintiff
proves his case.” Id. at 2.
At bottom, Mr. Ratcliffe asks the Court to deny BRP’s motion and consider
photographic evidence on a photo-by-photo basis at the time of trial. Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines evidence as relevant if it: “(a) it has any
tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence;
and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” 	F ED. R. EVID. 401.
Relevant evidence is generally admissible, unless otherwise precluded by the United
States Constitution, federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules
prescribed by the Supreme Court. 	F ED. R. EVID. 402. 	Here, BRP argues numerous
post-injury photographs would violate Rule 403, which grants courts the discretion
to exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a
danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.” F ED. R. EVID. 403.
As an initial matter, the Court concludes that the post-injury photographic
evidence of the injury to Mr. Ratcliffe’s arm and hand are relevant to his claim. 	As
BRP concedes in its motion, and the Plaintiff highlights in its opposition, the
Defendant 	“acknowledges 	that 	some 	of 	those 	photographs 	are 	relevant 	and
probative,” that “[e]vidence of the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s injury is, no doubt,
probative of the value of any potential damages award,” and that “such evidence may
be relevant to assessing causation and the mechanism of the injury.” 	Def.’s Mot. at
1-2; Pl.’s Opp’n at 1.
As BRP correctly observes, the First Circuit in Galarneau ruled that relevant
evidence may be excluded if the district court judge finds “the ‘untoward effects of the
proffered evidence’ to be to be so weighty that the evidence should be excluded.”
Galarneau, 504 F.3d at 205 (quoting Faigin, 184 F.3d at 80). 	“Under Rule 403’s
weighing test, ‘it is only unfair prejudice which must be avoided.’” 	United States v.
Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 122 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-
Estrada, 877 F.2d 153, 156 (1st Cir. 1989)). 	The Rodriguez-Estrada Court further
explained that, “usually, courts use the term ‘unfair prejudice’ for evidence that
invites the jury to render a verdict on an improper emotional basis.” Id.
Courts have specifically relied on Rule 403 as the basis for excluding especially
gruesome photographs for fear of unfairly prejudicing the jury. In Navarro de Cosme
v. Hospital Pavia, 922 F.2d 926 (1st Cir. 1991), the First Circuit affirmed the district
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
court’s decision in limine to exclude photographic evidence of a stillborn fetus after
the judge stated:
The photos are gruesome. 	The photos are, in my own estimation . . .
insensible [and] I will not admit them in this Court. . .. If I live to be 90
years old I will never forget those photos. . .. I am not going to show them
to the jury.
Id. at 931. 	The First Circuit further noted the diminished probative value of such
evidence when “[the plaintiffs] were able to present other evidence in support of their
argument.” Id.
Here, the two post-injury photographs depicting Mr. Ratcliffe’s open fracture
which BRP attaches to its motion are undeniably grisly and disturbing. 	See Def.’s
Mot., Attach. 1, Injury Photographs (ECF No. 174-1). 	However, as BRP concedes,
they are also admissible. They demonstrate the mechanism of Mr. Ratcliffe’s injury
so they are probative on liability and the dramatic nature of his injury so they are
probative of damages. 	The Court thus agrees that the two photographs BRP
presented in its motion are, in their own right, admissible.
More than this, the Court cannot say. Even though Mr. Ratcliffe indicates his
desire and intent to present additional images, neither he nor BRP has presented the
images to the Court. 	The Court cannot rule on the admissibility of evidence it has
not seen. It may be that the images essentially duplicate the two photographs before
the Court, and if so, the Court may exclude them as redundant and potentially
prejudicial. 	But the photographs may be probative for other reasons, including to
document Mr. Ratcliffe’s recovery, his capacity, then and now, or to illustrate his pain
and suffering damages. If the additional photographs are probative of something not
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
depicted in the two photographs now before the Court, the Court will weigh their
prejudicial impact against their probative value on a photograph-by-photograph
basis. In other words, if the additional photographs depict only what is already shown
in the two photographs BRP submitted, Mr. Ratcliffe will have to convince the Court
that their probative value is not cumulative and not outweighed by their prejudicial
effect. See F ED. R. EVID. 403.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Defendant BRP’s Motion In Limine
No. 7 and Supporting Brief to Preclude Multiple Images of Plaintiff’s Post-Accident
Injuries (ECF No. 174) as it requests the Court to issue a pretrial ruling on the
admissibility of evidence the Court has never seen.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of November, 2024
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 258 Filed 11/06/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>