## Facts

- Thomas I. Grimes brought a diversity personal-injury action arising from an industrial accident allegedly causing serious injuries.
- Before trial, Grimes moved in limine for rulings on the admissibility of (1) a silent 16 mm film depicting his daily activities and clinical/prosthetic tests and (2) two television commercials advertising the insurer’s safety services.
- The “plaintiff’s film” was approximately 25 minutes and had three segments: (1) daily activities near his home, (2) the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, and (3) range-of-motion/prosthetic device testing.
- A professional photographer who filmed the footage testified the camera was in good working order, the scenes were not rehearsed, no special effects were used, the film was not edited, and it accurately portrayed what he observed.
- Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. objected that the plaintiff’s film was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, selective/cumulative, and hearsay.
- Employers also objected that the commercials (“Wausau Men” and “Physical Exam”) were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and hearsay.
- Portions of the plaintiff’s film included scenes involving family members (including his daughter and quadriplegic brother), which the insurer argued were designed to generate sympathy.

## Issues

1. Whether a silent motion picture depicting a personal-injury plaintiff’s daily activities and clinical tests is admissible when challenged as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, selective/cumulative, and hearsay.
2. Whether the defendant-insurer’s television commercials advertising safety services are admissible as relevant evidence and as non-hearsay party-opponent admissions.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion in limine in part and denied it in part.
- The court ruled the plaintiff’s film was generally admissible if properly authenticated and relevant, but excluded segments featuring family members or otherwise likely to elicit sympathy without sufficient probative value.
- The court admitted the “Physical Exam” commercial as relevant and as an admission by a party opponent, rejecting the hearsay objection as to that commercial.
- The order did not resolve liability or damages; it addressed only pretrial evidentiary rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Motion pictures are admissible when authenticated and relevant; authentication requires proof of the identity of what is depicted and that the film fairly and accurately represents what it purports to show, including circumstances of filming and projection.
- Evidence with probative value may be excluded to the extent its unfairly prejudicial effect substantially outweighs that value; courts may admit a film while excluding particular unduly prejudicial portions.
- Objections that a film is “selective” or cumulative typically go to weight, not admissibility, when cross-examination can test representativeness and context.
- A silent film depicting conduct generally does not present hearsay concerns because it contains no out-of-court verbal assertions offered for their truth.
- A party’s own advertising statements may be admitted against it as party-opponent admissions and are not barred by the hearsay rule when relevant to disputed duties, knowledge, or undertakings.

## Conclusion

The court permitted use of demonstrative film evidence to show the claimed physical impact of an injury, while excising segments likely to invite improper sympathy, and allowed a defendant-insurer’s safety-services commercial into evidence as a relevant party-opponent admission.


Grimes v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 73 F.R.D. 607 (D. Alaska 1977)