## Facts

- Steven Otterstatter drove at night with his two young daughters as passengers when his vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven by Elizabeth Olinde.
- The daughters were seriously injured, and their mother, Robin Evans, sued to recover damages for the children’s injuries against parties including Olinde, Otterstatter, and insurers.
- Otterstatter filed a cross-claim against Olinde seeking damages for his own emotional and psychological harm allegedly caused by the accident.
- Liability turned largely on visibility: Olinde contended Otterstatter’s vehicle had no lights illuminated and that she could not see it in time to avoid the collision.
- Shortly after the accident, investigators Leo Brassett and Gene Moody located Otterstatter’s vehicle and removed its headlights and taillights.
- Brassett and Moody testified that the removed lights were provided to Dr. Leonard Adams, an electrical-engineering witness, for testing to determine whether the bulbs were on at the time of impact.
- Before trial, Otterstatter moved in limine to exclude evidence and testimony about Dr. Adams’s testing, arguing there was insufficient proof that the tested lights were the ones removed from his vehicle.
- The trial court initially granted the motion in limine due to an inadequate foundation connecting the tested lights to Otterstatter’s vehicle, but later changed its ruling during trial and permitted testimony about the removal, transfer, and testing.
- At trial, Moody testified he delivered the lights to Dr. Adams; Dr. Adams testified about his testing and conclusions, but he did not have personal knowledge that the bulbs he tested came from Otterstatter’s car.
- The bulbs that were tested were not introduced into evidence; the jury heard testimony about the testing instead.
- The jury found Olinde not at fault, and Otterstatter appealed, challenging the evidentiary ruling and the resulting verdict.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by allowing testimony about Dr. Adams’s headlight/taillight testing after initially excluding it on a motion in limine, given the disputed identification and chain of custody for the lights?
2. Under the manifest error standard, was the jury’s finding that Olinde was not at fault clearly wrong in light of the conflicting evidence about whether Otterstatter’s lights were on?

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the judgment and the jury’s verdict finding Olinde not at fault.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing testimony about the light removal and testing after additional foundation was presented at trial; deficiencies in proof connecting the bulbs to Otterstatter’s vehicle were for the jury to consider in deciding weight and credibility.
- Applying the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, the court concluded the record provided a reasonable basis for the jury’s resolution of disputed facts and credibility, including the contention that Otterstatter’s vehicle was not illuminated.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion over evidentiary rulings, and a motion in limine ruling is preliminary; the court may change the ruling at trial when the evidentiary foundation develops.
- Challenges to identification or chain of custody of physical items generally affect the weight of related testimony rather than its admissibility when there is testimonial evidence connecting the items to the event.
- Appellate review of a jury’s factual findings is governed by the manifest error/clearly wrong standard; when competing testimony supports more than one view, the factfinder’s credibility determinations are given great deference and will not be reweighed on appeal.

## Conclusion

Evans v. Olinde affirmed a defense verdict arising from a nighttime rear-end collision where the key dispute was whether the lead vehicle’s lights were illuminated. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow testimony about headlight/taillight bulb testing after hearing additional foundation at trial, and it refused to disturb the jury’s no-fault finding because the record supported the jury’s credibility calls under manifest error review.


Evans v. Olinde, 609 So. 2d 299 (1992)