## Facts

- Jeremy Johnson sued Kathleen Kehl in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for negligence arising from a June 19, 2014 automobile collision.
- Kehl admitted fault for causing the crash, so the jury trial focused on damages, including the nature, extent, and cause of Johnson’s claimed injuries and the amount of compensation.
- Johnson sought medical care the day after the collision for left-shoulder pain and later reported right-shoulder pain.
- Johnson claimed long-term injury and treatment culminating in left-shoulder surgery in January 2020 and right-shoulder surgery in August 2020.
- Johnson presented medical bills totaling about $151,904.34 and sought recovery reflecting those expenses and his claimed pain and suffering.
- Kehl contested the extent and causation of Johnson’s claimed injuries and damages, and her counsel pursued a theme that Johnson was undeserving of a substantial award.
- Over Johnson’s objections, the trial court allowed the defense to present and repeatedly emphasize evidence and insinuations about Johnson’s personal life, work history, finances, and driving record that had, at most, limited connection to the damages questions being tried.
- In closing argument, defense counsel returned to these topics to portray Johnson as financially needy and greedy and as someone with a negative background.
- The jury awarded Johnson $12,932.46 in total damages ($8,432.46 in economic damages and $4,500 in noneconomic damages), an amount far below the medical expenses Johnson presented.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in a damages-only trial by admitting and permitting repeated use of marginally relevant personal, financial, employment, and driving-history evidence that unfairly prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff.
2. Whether the cumulative effect of admitting that evidence affected substantial rights and required reversal and a new trial rather than harmless-error affirmance.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a collection of evidence and argument that shifted the jury’s attention from damages proof to negative character judgments about Johnson.
- Considering the challenged material together and in the context of a damages-only trial, the court concluded the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed any limited probative value.
- Because this evidentiary error required a new trial, the court treated it as dispositive and did not decide the remaining assignments of error.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have discretion over evidentiary rulings, but appellate courts will reverse for an abuse of discretion.
- Evidence must be relevant to a fact of consequence to be admissible. Ohio Evid. R. 401–402.
- Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. Ohio Evid. R. 403(A).
- “Unfair prejudice” includes evidence that invites a verdict based on improper considerations such as dislike of a party’s character or lifestyle rather than the issues the jury must decide.
- When multiple items of weakly related, character-focused evidence are admitted and emphasized, courts may consider their combined effect in assessing prejudice.
- Reversal is warranted when the improper admission and use of evidence likely influenced the damages award and therefore affected substantial rights.

## Conclusion

Johnson v. Kehl holds that in a negligence case tried only on damages after liability is admitted, a court must guard against character-based attacks masquerading as damages evidence; allowing repeated, marginally relevant proof and argument about the plaintiff’s finances, employment, personal life, and driving history can create unfair prejudice under Evid. R. 403(A), and where the record shows the defense used that material to steer the jury away from the medical and damages questions, the resulting verdict must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.


Johnson v. Kehl, 174 N.E.3d 1282 (2021)