LawyersUSA

Attacking a plaintiff's credibility in a products liability case with evidence of his extramarital affairs is impermissible because it is unduly prejudicial, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a defense verdict.

The plaintiff sued a tire manufacturer after he was injured in an accident that occurred when the tire on his rented shipping van delaminated and failed.

The manufacturer learned the married plaintiff had a mistress and two illegitimate children in the city he was hauling produce to when the tire failed. It also learned he at one point had two wives.

At trial, the manufacturer asserted that the plaintiff had overloaded the van because he was trying to support two families. When the plaintiff denied it, the manufacturer introduced the testimony of his mistress as impeachment evidence, along with evidence that he was a bigamist.

A jury rendered a verdict for the manufacturer.

The plaintiff argued that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative of the real issues in the case.

The court agreed.

"[The manufacturer's] primary basis for introducing evidence of [the plaintiff's] illicit conduct was to contradict his deposition testimony that he could not recall who [his other wife and mistress] were. But his extramarital affairs were irrelevant to the substantive issue in the case: the cause of the accident. To the extent the evidence was relevant to [the plaintiff's] credibility, it was more prejudicial than probative," the court said.

"[T]he existence of irrelevant testimony by a witness does not permit its introduction by an adversary just so the adversary can then offer contradictory evidence to impeach the witness."

The court cited similar cases from Alaska and Utah, as well as from the 5th and 9th Circuits.

California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. Winfred D. v. Michelin North America, Inc., No. B195416. August 7, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 99310542. Click here for the full text of this opinion.