PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM REGARDING
ADMISSABILITY OF STATISTICAL EVIDENCE
The South Carolina 2014 Traffic Collision Fact Book is Not Hearsay
Under Rule 803(8) “Public Records and Reports” are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when, “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report.” The statistics contain no opinion, judgment, or conclusion regarding their meaning. cf., Fowler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 410 S.C. 403, 764 S.E.2d 249 (S.C. App. 2014). Therefore, the South Carolina Department of Public Safety 2014 Traffic Collision Fact Book (the most recent published) is admissible.
Second, the statistic before the court “is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.” The Department of Public Safety has published the document at the link included. As the Supreme Court noted in In re Henry:
“Courts will take judicial notice of subjects and facts of general knowledge, and also of facts in the field of any particular science which are capable of demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy, and judges may inform themselves as to such facts by reference to standard works on the subject.”
In re Harry C., 280 S.C. 308, 309-10, 313 S.E.2d 287, 288 (1984) (quoting State v. Newton, 21 N.C.App. 384, 204 S.E.2d 724, 725 (1974
The Plaintiff’s statistical evidence is relevant to the issues in this case.
“Evidence meets the test of relevance if it tends to establish or to make more or less probable some matter in issue upon which it directly or indirectly bears.” Judy v. Judy, 384 S.C. 634, 641, 682 S.E.2d 836, 839 (Ct. App. 2009) (citing Crowley v. Spivey, 285 S.C. 397, 410, 329 S.E.2d 774, 782 (Ct. App. 1985).
In the present case, the statistics offered by Plaintiff are relevant because they go to the issues of notice and foreseeability. As described, these statistics were compiled to protect the public by highlighting certain dangers inherent in driving carelessly.
Second, these statistics are relevant to foreseeability. They describe not only the prevalence of incidents similar to that which befell the Plaintiff, but the degree of harm and risk that frequently accompanies such incidents. It is a fundamental tenant of tort law that the level of potential harm dictates the level of care required. Palsgraf v .Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 344, 162 N.E. 99, 100 (N.Y. 1928). “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.” Palsgraf, citing Seavey, Negligence, Subjective or Objective, 41 H.L. Rv. 6; Boronkay v. Robinson & Carpenter, 247 N.Y. 365, 160 N.E. 400) (1928). Defendant should have been aware of as a reasonable person. These publicly available statistics bear directly on this issue, and should be admitted.
Apart from providing relief for damages incurred, the primary aim of tort law is to deter others from committing the same harms. See, Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). More simply stated, a goal of tort law is to make things safer. In this way, the purpose of tort law follows the purpose of the statistics themselves. Like these statistics, which educated the public about a known danger, the deterrence goal depends on an educated fact finder. The Defendant in this case may have chosen not to heed this public information; however, there is no reason for the fact finder to remain ignorant of it. These statistics serve the purpose of tort law and the interests of justice.
These statistics are thus relevant. As the Defendant raises no argument as to how they are unfair or prejudicial, they should be admitted. Rule 403, SCRE. See, State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 35, 538 S.E.2d 248, 256 (2000).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court admit these statistics into evidence.
Edwin L. Turnage
Attorney for Plaintiff
HARRIS & GRAVES, P.A.
812 Laurens Road
Greenville, SC 29608
(864) 235-1331
Date: ______
2