¶1dissenting.
¶2I respectfully dissent.
¶3To be sure, it is common nature for a fact-finder to conclude from a photograph depicting minor vehicle damage that the resulting injuries were also minor. However, that inclination should not influence the admissibility of the photographs. I agree with the Appellate Division that “photographs depicting slight vehicular damage, although conceivably serving other valid purposes, simply do not support, without corroborative expert proof, the inference that the accident could not have caused the serious injury of which a plaintiff complains.” Brenman v. Demello, 383 N.J.Super. 521, 533, 892 A.2d 741 (App.Div.2006).
¶4In this case, the issue was causation of plaintiffs injuries. Because the parties failed to present expert proof demonstrating that the slight damage to the vehicle could not have caused plaintiffs serious injuries, the photographs should not have been admitted without restrictions on their use. In my view, the Appellate Division struck the proper balance in holding that:
photographic evidence is neither automatically admissible nor excludable, but rather subject to the sound exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Whether an expert foundation is required depends, of course, on the particular issue in the case *38to which the photographic evidence relates. Here, that issue was causation and because no expert proof of correlation was produced, we hold that the introduction of the photographs without restriction on their use and the use actually made of them by the defense constitute reversible error.
¶5[Id. at 537-38, 892 A.2d 741.]
¶6I would affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division.