Opinion: Evidence of undocumented worker's status too prejudicial at trial
The Supreme Court today ruled that a trial court judge was wrong to allow evidence of an undocumented worker’s illegal immigration status in a personal injury case. The case is Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, No. 81590-9 (briefs and argument).
Alex Salas, an immigrant from Mexico whose visa expired, fell off a scaffolding ladder and sued the company that set up the ladder. At trial, the court allowed evidence of his immigration status, in part to determine the value of Salas’ future earnings potential. The jury did not find Hi-Tech Erectors liable for Salas’ injury. On appeal Salas argues the trial court should not have allowed evidence of his immigration status.
The Supreme Court agreed. Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that Salas’ immigration status was relevant information for determining the value of his future lost wages. Nevertheless, the court held that the value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfairly prejudicing the jury. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address additional issues.
Justice Gerry Alexander, a former trial court judge, dissented. He wrote that if the majority believed the evidence of Salas’ status was relevant for determining future lost wages then the trial court did not abuse its discretion and should not be reversed. “I cannot say that the trial court's decision to admit [the evidence] was manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. Neither can I say that it was a decision that no reasonable judge would have made.”
