## Facts

- Silas C. Clark underwent surgery at St. Thomas Hospital.
- Before discharge, hospital personnel took Clark for a postoperative chest x-ray.
- During the x-ray procedure, Clark fell and was injured.
- Clark alleged the fall was caused by the negligence of an x-ray technician who failed to properly assist or secure him during positioning.
- At trial, the hospital introduced a videotape reenacting the x-ray procedure as the technician claimed it was performed, using a stand-in patient.
- The technician testified the videotape accurately represented the procedure as performed on Clark.
- A jury returned a verdict for the hospital, and the trial court entered judgment dismissing Clark’s negligence claim.
- Clark appealed, challenging only the admission of the videotaped reenactment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting a videotaped reenactment of the x-ray procedure as evidence where it illustrated a witness’s account but was not a literal duplication of the event and differed in some respects from the actual occurrence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for St. Thomas Hospital.
- The court held the videotape was properly admitted as demonstrative evidence to illustrate the technician’s testimony.
- The court concluded that differences between the reenactment and the actual event were for the jury to evaluate and did not require exclusion.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A videotaped reenactment may be admitted as demonstrative evidence when offered to illustrate a witness’s testimony rather than as an independent recording of the event.
- Proper foundation exists when a witness with knowledge testifies that the reenactment fairly and accurately represents the procedure or conduct being described.
- Variations between the reenactment and the actual event generally affect the weight of the evidence, not admissibility, if the differences are disclosed and can be tested through cross-examination.
- Admission of demonstrative evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion, reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion, including whether probative value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice or misleading the jury.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict in a hospital negligence case, holding that a properly authenticated videotaped reenactment illustrating a witness’s testimony was admissible and that any discrepancies from the actual occurrence were for the jury to consider, absent an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.


Clark v. St. Thomas Hosp., 676 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)