Trial court’s refusal to cure prejudicial photos prompts new trial

The South Carolina Court of Appeals ordered a new trial after finding that the trial court improperly allowed the plaintiff to show inadmissible photographs to the jury during opening statements and then declined to give a curative instruction. The court held that the defendants’ motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The dispute arose from the plaintiff’s negligence claim alleging she stepped on a nail while shopping in 2015, ultimately requiring an above-the-knee amputation. Four years after the incident, the plaintiff’s counsel and others entered the store without arranging a Rule 34 site inspection and took photographs and video of pallets, nails, and a broken pallet on the sales floor. The defendants sought to exclude the images under Rules 401 and 403 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence.

The trial court partially granted that request, barring photos of the broken pallet but permitting others for the limited purpose of showing alleged noncompliance with ANSI standards—paired with a limiting instruction. But during opening statements, the plaintiff displayed photographs that the court had already ruled inadmissible and used the images to suggest that the pallets shown looked the same at the time of the incident and continued to endanger shoppers.

The court held that the photos were irrelevant because they were taken years after the event and were not shown to depict conditions existing at the time of the injury. It further concluded the images were unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. Because the trial court refused to give a curative instruction when the defendants requested one, the court found an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.

The matter was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The 4-page opinion is Jones v. Ringer, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-035-25.