Scott v. Kesselring

Under OEC 401, evidence is pertinent if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Kesselring appealed a judgment where Scott was awarded $41,000 in economic damages and $200,000 in noneconomic damages that resulted from Kesselring rear-ending Scott. Kesselring assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to exclude evidence phone usage as the cause of the accident. Kesselring argued that because she admitted to breaching the reasonably prudent standard, the reason she breached was irrelevant and would extremely prejudice her based on society’s view of phone usage while driving. Under OEC 401, evidence is pertinent if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” The Court held that evidence of Kesselring's phone usage while driving was not relevant to the foreseeability of Scott’s injuries. The Court reasoned that Scott was unaware of Kesselring’s phone usage until a deposition, meaning no logical connection existed between the evidence and the type or degree of injury or stress Scott endured as a result of Kesselring's phone usage. Reversed and remanded.