Motion in Limine Regarding Property Damage

This sample property damage  Motion in Limine asks the Court to exclude from trial photographic evidence of vehicle damage when offered to support the defense’s anticipated argument that the Plaintiff’s injuries could not have been serious because the cars do not appear significantly damaged. While such an argument may seem intuitive on its face, it is, in reality, based on a set of technical and scientific assumptions that exceed the understanding of a lay jury; therefore, under Maryland law, it requires expert testimony. The Plaintiff does not seek to exclude relevant or probative evidence, but rather seeks to ensure that any inferences the jury is asked to make are grounded in reliable science, not conjecture.

There is a long-standing, common defense strategy in low-impact auto cases: holding up a picture of a seemingly undamaged bumper and asking jurors to trust their instincts that “no one could have been hurt in a crash like this.” The problem is that this tactic encourages jurors to make leaps that they are not legally or factually equipped to make. In Maryland, as in most jurisdictions, when the causal relationship between an event and an injury requires specialized knowledge to understand—whether that be from engineering, physics, or medicine—expert testimony is not optional. It is required. Without it, such an argument is inadmissible because it invites speculation.

The motion before the court is grounded in that principle. Plaintiff seeks to exclude photographic evidence of the vehicles involved in the accident unless the defense can produce a qualified expert who will testify that the extent of physical damage reliably correlates with injury severity. Without such testimony, these photos risk misleading the jury into assuming that less visible damage equals less physical harm—an assumption that medical science does not support.

Are You Likely to Win This Motion?

Ah no. While the legal theory underlying the motion is sound—expert testimony is generally required when technical analysis is necessary—most courts will give trial judges broad discretion in admitting photographs of vehicle damage. In practice, most judges will allow the jury to view these images, reasoning that they are part of the factual context of the accident, even if no expert testifies about them. The court may admit the photos with a limiting instruction that the jury is not to infer anything about injury severity from the apparent damage (or lack thereof), but that still leaves room for the kind of gut-level reasoning this motion seeks to avoid.

Appellate courts have not squarely held that photographic evidence of minor damage is inadmissible without expert testimony. Trial courts usually distinguish those cases from the relatively routine evidentiary decisions involved in auto injury litigation. Judges often find that photos can help jurors understand the scene, and they are generally reluctant to exclude them entirely without a stronger showing of prejudice than mere inference.

In summary, while this motion articulates a legally and scientifically sound position, prevailing on it will likely require either unusually compelling case law that strictly links injury inference to expert testimony or a judge particularly concerned about the prejudicial impact of misused visual evidence. In most Maryland courtrooms, the defense will be permitted to show the jury the photographs, provided they do not directly argue that low property damage proves a lack of injury without an expert.

This motion challenges the admissibility of vehicle damage photographs in a personal injury trial where the defense seeks to argue that minimal property damage implies a lack of injury. The central question is whether such visual evidence, without accompanying expert testimony, should be shown to the jury. Under Maryland law and precedent in many jurisdictions, this determination lies within the trial court’s discretion. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court preclude the introduction of such evidence absent competent expert testimony.

• More Sample Motions in Limine

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

Crystal Smith, Plaintiff
v.
Margaret A. Wilson, Defendant
Case No.: 03-C-02-21532

Motion in Limine to Exclude Photographic Evidence of Vehicle Damage

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, moves this Court to exclude photographs of the vehicles involved in the subject motor vehicle accident. In the absence of expert testimony connecting the degree of visible vehicle damage to Plaintiff’s physical injuries, the introduction of such evidence would improperly invite jury speculation. In support, Plaintiff states the following:

I. Factual Background

This personal injury action arises from a motor vehicle collision. Defendant has produced photographs depicting minor visible damage to Plaintiff’s rear bumper and none to Defendant’s vehicle. While Plaintiff does not contest the low-speed nature of the collision, Defendant is expected to rely on these images to suggest that the injuries could not have been serious. Plaintiff anticipates that defense counsel may either argue directly or imply to the jury that the extent of the vehicle damage undermines Plaintiff’s claim of injury.

II. Legal Framework

Under Maryland law, expert testimony is required when the subject matter involves scientific or technical analysis that exceeds the understanding of a lay jury. See Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 109 Md. App. 217, 257 (1996), aff’d, 346 Md. 122 (1997)

III. Argument

Maryland Rule 5-702 requires expert testimony where an argument rests on technical knowledge.  This rule provides that expert testimony may be admitted if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. The court must determine whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony. Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates, 484 Md. 296 (2023). 

The defense is expected to argue that because the property damage to the vehicles appears minor—or even nonexistent- the plaintiff could not have been seriously injured. At first glance, this might seem like a common-sense argument. But once you dig beneath the surface, it becomes clear that this is not a question that lay jurors are equipped to answer without the guidance of expert testimony. It is not a matter of simple observation; rather, it encompasses multiple scientific disciplines, including physics, engineering, biomechanics, and medicine.

To begin with, assessing the amount of force involved in a collision based on visual damage to a vehicle is not a straightforward process. The exterior of a car can be deceptive. Bumpers, for instance, are designed to absorb and distribute impact. The materials used—whether plastic, metal, foam, or composite—behave differently under stress. The same impact may produce visible damage on one model and leave another looking untouched. Evaluating what kind of force was required to produce (or not produce) that damage demands specialized knowledge of automotive engineering and materials science.

But even if we could accurately quantify the force of the impact, the next question is how that force translates to the human body inside the vehicle. This is not as simple as assuming that less visible damage means the occupant felt less impact. Force travels in complex ways through a vehicle’s structure. Some vehicles dissipate energy through crumple zones; others may channel it more directly to the cabin. Depending on the angle of impact, the seating position, the posture of the occupant, and a dozen other variables, a relatively minor impact to a bumper may still result in a significant jolt to a person’s neck or spine. Understanding how this force moves through the vehicle and interacts with the body requires expertise in biomechanics and crash dynamics.

Finally, the most critical issue in this case is medical: what is the minimum amount of force necessary to cause the specific injury at issue, in this case, a herniated disc. That is not something that can be judged by looking at a photo of a car. The human body is not a machine with predictable failure points. Some people suffer severe injuries from low-speed impacts; others walk away from high-speed collisions with nothing more than soreness. There is no universal “injury threshold” visible to the naked eye. Establishing causation requires expert medical testimony that connects the forces involved in the crash to the anatomical and physiological damage sustained by the plaintiff.

So while the defense may seek to simplify the case by pointing to a lack of property damage, that argument rests on a foundation of technical assumptions that are well beyond the knowledge of a typical juror. Maryland law is clear that expert testimony is required when the issues at hand involve scientific or specialized knowledge that a layperson would not reasonably possess. Without such testimony, the jury would be left to guess, invited to substitute intuition for evidence. That is not how our system works. Injuries are proven with science, not snapshots.

As outlined in S.B. Thomas, Inc. v. Thompson, 114 Md. App. 357, 382 (1977), complicated medical causation questions arise when: (1) there is a significant delay between trauma and diagnosis; (2) injury is distant from the point of impact; (3) medical testimony is lacking; or (4) causation lies outside common experience. Each of these factors may apply here.

IV. Conclusion

Whether minimal vehicle damage correlates with the likelihood or severity of injury is not a question for lay interpretation. It is a scientific question, suited for expert analysis, not jury speculation. Jurors should not be asked to infer force dynamics, energy transfer, or human tissue response from a static image of a bumper. This is a task more appropriate for physicists, engineers, and medical professionals than for the lay factfinder.

Relief Requested

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an order instructing all parties, counsel, and witnesses that no person shall reference, introduce, or suggest to the jury, directly or indirectly:

1. Any assessment of the force between the vehicles.
2. The speed of either vehicle at impact.
3. The extent of property damage to either vehicle.
4. Any asserted relationship between property damage and physical injury.
5. Any photographic evidence of either vehicle.

Submitted by:
Miller & Zois, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Laura G. Zois
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 779-4600
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine to Exclude Photographic Evidence of Vehicle Damage was served by U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, on all counsel of record.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

Order

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Photographic Evidence of Vehicle Damage, it is this ___ day of ____________, 2025, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland:

ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant is precluded from referencing, introducing, or suggesting to the jury, directly or indirectly:

1. The amount of force between the two vehicles.
2. The speed of the striking vehicle.
3. The amount of damage or lack thereof to either vehicle.
4. Any correlation between the property damage and the Plaintiff’s injuries;
5. Any photographs of either vehicle involved in the collision.

__________________________
Judge

Back to Sample Motions in Limine