Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney About Us Personal Injury Family Law Community Outreach Contact Us
Call Our Offices Now View Our Testimonials Visit Our Personal Injury Blog

FGA, INC. V. GIGLIO, 278 P.3D 490

FGA, INC. V. GIGLIO, 278 P.3D 490

Giglio was a patron of Carmine's Little Italy. After having a couple of beers within a 45 minute window she walked to the bathroom where she slipped and fell on a wet substance. The Nevada Supreme court considered several issues in this case. Here we will discuss two of those issues. At the trial level her counsel filed motions in limine to exclude both evidence of her drinking two beers and additionally excluded evidence relating to prior injuries

With respect to the motion to exclude Giglio's alcohol consumption, the court first found that intoxication may be probative of the issues of causation and comparative negligence. The court further found however that evidence of the alleged impairment shall not be introduced unless there is support for a finding of a causal link between the impairment and the injury. In this case, though there was evidence showing that she smelled of alcohol and that she drank two beers in a short period of time; there was nothing to support a finding that she was intoxicated. Specifically, there were no signs in the accident report, nor the medical records from the hospital, which indicated she was intoxicated. As a result the Supreme Court found that the district court properly excluded this evidence.

Giglio had also filed a motion to exclude evidence of any prior injuries. The district court granted Giglio's motion. Specifcially, Giglio had seen several doctors about moderate to sever back pain in the 11 years which preceded the Carmines fall. However, though she had taken medication in the past to treat upper back injury, she had been treated only for lower back injury as a result of the Carmine's accident.

The Supreme Court stated that in order for evidence of prior injury to be admissible, a defendant must present competent evidence of a causal connection between the prior injury and the injury at issue. Moreover, unless it is readily apparent to a layperson, a defendant seeking to introduce evidence of a prior injury generally must produce expert testimony demonstrating the relationship between the prior injury and the injury complained of; as well as why it is a fact of consequence. If medical expert testimony is offered to establish causation, it, "Must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability." For a defense expert to testify, contrary to the Plaintiff, regarding causation, the defense expert must include the plaintiff's causation theory in the analysis. In Giglio, none of the experts were able to testify to a reasonable degree of medical probability that her preexisting condition caused the injuries at hand.

Categories: Personal Injury