Search Site
Menu
But Officer, Her Headlights Were Off . . .

Have you, a friend or a loved one ever been involved in a car accident – what about an automobile accident that could have been avoided but for the negligence of another driver?

I’m guessing if you have been involved in a car accident, then you know that when the police are called and arrive on the scene the responding officer attempts to gather as much information as possible about the accident and in doing so will ask for statements from all persons involved and witnesses alike.

Oftentimes, there are several versions of what really happened and because there may be a dispute as to who was at fault, it is not uncommon for many auto accident victims to find themselves embroiled in a lawsuit.

So, you may be asking yourself, well what’s the issue? Assuming, the parties cannot settle their dispute and are forced to go to court, they can hire an experienced attorney, file a lawsuit and simply tell their version of what really happened to the judge (or jury) who, with the help of evidence and witness testimony, will determine who was at fault. And, for the majority of cases, you would be right – your auto accident attorney will try to settle the case and get you the maximum damages recoverable, including pain and suffering, medical expense reimbursement and loss wages – and if the case does not settle out of court, your attorney will commence a personal injury lawsuit on your behalf.

But, what happens if one (or more) of the persons who gave statements to the responding officer dies before trial? Can the responding officer testify as to the statements that were made to him/her at the scene of the accident?

This issue of whether or not a party’s statements to a police officer after an accident should be admissible evidence at trial or properly precluded under the hearsay rule was addressed in the case of Arabatlian v. Platt. In Arabatlian, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to preclude testimony from the responding officer as to one driver’s statements made directly after the accident in a wrongful death case.

After stopping at a stop sign, Plaintiff, Kevork Arabatlian, with his wife in the passenger seat, proceeded to make a left hand turn through an intersection. Upon turning, Arabatlian hit the side of a vehicle driven by the Defendant, Laura Platt. Arabatlian said Platt’s lights were off – Platt of course said her headlights were on. Plaintiff’s wife, Zwart, died after the accident.

Plaintiff and his son filed a lawsuit against the driver Platt alleging causes of action for wrongful death, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and a survival action. Before the case was ready for trial, Mr. Arabatlian died.

After the accident the Arabatlians had given statements to the responding officer that Platt’s headlights were off. Mr. Arabatlian explained that because her headlights were off, he could not see Platt when proceeding through the intersection. Platt filed motions to preclude the officer from testifying to these statements on the grounds of hearsay. The trial court agreed but let two neighbors testify as to what they heard the Arabatlians say at the time of the accident.

Mrs. Arabatlian’s injuries and cause of death were contested at trial and ultimately the jury found in favor of Platt, that she did not negligently cause Mrs. Arabatlian’s death.

While the officer was precluded from testifying, the court allowed the testimony of the two neighbors who arrived at the accident shortly after it occurred. The neighbors testified that when they arrived at the scene, Mr. Arabatlian was screaming “no lights, no lights.”

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the trial court’s decision to preclude the officer’s testimony holding neither the “excited utterance” nor the “present sense impression” exceptions to the hearsay rule applied. Indeed, the Superior Court agreed that the officer’s proffered testimony was a “new statement made by way of explanation” not a statement made soon after or contemporaneous with the event that was occurring. For the hearsay exceptions to apply, the declarant cannot have had the time to form a reason for misstatement. In addition, the Court noted that plaintiffs did not suffer prejudice as a result of the ruling because the testimony of the neighbors – that Mr. Arabatlian claimed Platt’s headlights were off – was admitted and in essence accomplished the same task.

Copies of the Court’s opinion can be found at, Arabatlian v. Platt, PICS No. 15-0003, Pennsylvania Instant Case Service 800-276-PICS.

Contact us

Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.

Quick Contact Form

Client Testimonials
  • "I had a slip and fall in a grocery store and injured my shoulder to the point of needing surgery to repair. The Law Firm made contact with them to make restitution on my behalf. After going back and forth… they awarded me a settlement for my pain and medical bills. The [Firm] were super easy to work with and I would definitely… use them again. I was and am very satisfied with the end result. THANK YOU!"  -Bob S.

  • "When I got hurt at work I didn’t know what I was going to do being a single mom of three. It was very scary and only weeks before Christmas to boot. I was referred to the Pagano Law Firm by my mom and it was the best decision. The Firm took me under their wing and assured me everything would be okay. They handled everything and kept me posted along the way. I am so happy to be back on my feet in more ways than one… my case was handled with such care and the end result was more than I expected. I would recommend the Pagano Law Firm to everyone I know!"  -Jill

  • "We reached out to the Pagano Law Firm after a serious car accident. At the time it was not clear the extent of the injuries and what it would take to make us whole. The Pagano Law Firm attorneys were diligent in the handling of the case and advocated for us not just as clients but as friends. They were considerate and professional throughout the two years it took to bring the case to a close. Ultimately, we were successful in reaching a resolution that surpassed our expectations. We are very grateful to Marlo… and would recommend the firm for any legal concerns."  -M.V.

  • "Excellent. Awesome – very efficient. Thanks for everything."  -J.H.

  • "The Pagano Law Firm put our minds at ease in a difficult situation for us. They made us feel like family & were there with answers to any questions. They made our experience in a difficult situation a good one. Very thankful for the Pagano Law Firm and everyone there. Highly Recommend."  -Richard R.

  • "he Pagano Law Firm was so understanding and supportive in helping with our unexpected situation. We were so grateful to be working with such caring, supportive people. Thank you for all your help and support."  -M.R.

Our Office
  • Media Office
    115 West State Street
    Suite 401
    Media, Pennsylvania 19063
    Phone: 484-442-8750
    Fax: 484-442-8742
Awards & Affiliations