Uss v. Oyster Bay - 37 N.Y.2d 639, 376 N.Y.S.2d 449, 339 N.E.2d 147 (1975)

Rule:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion as matter of law in permitting defendant town's in-court demonstration involving striking of model metal pole upon which was mounted street sign which plaintiffs claimed had fallen from original pole and injured plaintiff when pole was struck by plaintiff's companion. Although the model was arguably not substantially similar to original, the mechanical principles involved were within jury's comprehension and it was not error to determine that plaintiffs' interests could be adequately protected by cross-examination -- demonstration was not deceptive, sensational, disruptive or purely conjectural.

Facts:

The injured infant was hurt when a dual street sign at an intersection fell on his head. Plaintiff infant and his father instituted a personal injury action against the town.  At trial, the street sign in question was introduced into evidence as part of the injured infant's case. The town offered as an exhibit a model metal pole that was similar to the one on which the sign had been mounted. Plaintiffs objected to any courtroom demonstration making use of the model pole. After inviting the jury's attention to differences between the model and the original, the court received the model pole as an exhibit and the dual street sign was placed on the pole. During his direct examination of the Superintendent of the Town's Sign Bureau, counsel for defendant town struck the model pole sharply with his hand. The sign was not unseated. Plaintiffs' objection to the particular demonstration was overruled, and without restriction plaintiffs' counsel proceeded to cross-examination with reference to the installation of the street sign, the physical details of its assembly and the possibilities of its being dislodged when struck by a "human blow". Without objection the street sign and the model pole were later taken into the jury room. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the town and others. The lower court affirmed that judgment. Plaintiffs sought review of the decision, arguing that the trial court erroneously permitted defense counsel to conduct an in-court demonstration employing a physical exhibit introduced by plaintiffs and a model introduced by defendants.

Issue:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing the conduct of an in-court demonstration employing a physical exhibit introduced by plaintiffs and a model introduced by defendants? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court found that the injured infant and his father objected not to the admission of the metal pole in evidence, but to its use by the town in a demonstration before the jury. The court found that the trial court was given broad discretion, and it could not be said that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the demonstration. The principles of mechanics involved in the demonstration were well within the experience and comprehension of an average juror, and the probative worth of the demonstration could be independently weighed by the jurors themselves. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.