Section 14 Day-in-the-Life Films

• Library: Damages 2012

Appellate courts have approved the admissibility of day-in-the-life films. See Yoos v. Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, 645 S.W.2d 177, 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983), in which the appellate court summarily approved the admissibility of a videotape of a plaintiff who was comatose. See also Lawton v. Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, 679 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984), in which the appellate court approved the showing of a videotape (without sound) of the plaintiff going about his daily routine—using a walker, getting in and out of bed, using the bathroom, and being shaved and dressed. The court noted that the plaintiff’s health prohibited his attendance at trial.

The issue presented in admitting or rejecting a day-in-the-life videotape is whether it is practical, instructive, and calculated to assist the jury in understanding the case. Long v. Mo. Delta Med. Ctr., 33 S.W.3d 629, 645 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001). In Long, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s admission of such a video because the plaintiff’s presence in the courtroom could not illustrate the care she required as well as the video and photographs could. The court also stated “that the video and photographs may well have aided the jury in...