Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE.

For all of the above reasons, such testimony and evidence is also irrelevant. Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to determination of the action. (Evidence Code §§210, 780, 1202.) No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. (Evidence Code §350.) Testimony about these supposed standards and practices for police accident-reporting have no application to determine if the subject accidents in this matter are a singular event or multiple events. These standards merely serve to provide guidelines to officers in their report writing duties. These standards were not developed for the purpose that plaintiff and his expert proposed. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

POLICE ACCIDENT REPORTING STANDARDS ARE AN ISSUE OF LAW AND INTRODUCTION OF SUCH EVIDENCE IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL

An experts testimony on an issue of law is not admissible, including an application of law to facts. The experts testimony on these matter usurps the judges and jurys responsibilities. (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155 (expert opinion on the legal question of duty was not admissible.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Rental Company Sued After Accident With Bus, Part 4 of 4" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

This case arises from two consecutive accidents involving the same bus, one at the intersection of Seminary and International involving the Universal vehicle, and one half a block away where the bus was driven into several residences across the street. Setting aside the issue of relative liability on the part of both drivers, the fact that only one police report was generated for both accidents is not probative of whether one or more accidents occurred. It is determinative that there was a relationship between the two accidents, as they both involved the same bus and that they were consecutive in time. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Evidence Code section 352 gives the court discretion to exclude evidence if its admission will necessitate the undue consumption of time, or if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues and misleading the jury. (Evidence Code §352.) Defendants respectfully request that any evidence of or reference to police accident report writing standards as determinative of the status of the accident as a singular event is only intended to mislead and prejudice the jury, and should thus be prohibited from mention.

Continue reading "Bus Versus Car Accident Leaves Sacramento Man Catastrophically Injured, Part 3 of 4" »

http://www.moseleycollins.com/lawyer-attorney-1245027.htmlThe following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

THE TRIAL COURT POSSESSES THE INHERENT POWER TO GRANT MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SUCH MOTIONS ARE A WELL ESTABLISHED METHOD OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451.

A MOTION IN LIMINE MAY BE USED TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE TO WHICH COUNSEL COULD OBJECT AT TRIAL IS IRRELEVANT OR IS SUBJECT TO THIS DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION BECAUSE OF ITS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL EFFECT

Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451.

THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY ITS PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OR HAS THE RISK OF MISLEADING OR CONFUSING THE JURY

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, the Court should weigh the probative value of proffered evidence against the probability that it will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. (People v. Murphy (1979) 8 Cal.3d 359.) If the Court finds that the probative value of the proffered evidence is weak and a danger of undue prejudice is strong, then it should rule that such evidence is inadmissible. (People v. Stanley (1967) 167 Cal.2d 812.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Police Reports Play Big Role In Sacramento Bus Accident Lawsuit, Part 2 of 4" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

Defendants Clive White and Universal Rental Car’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Police Accident Report Writing Standards

Defendants Clive White and Universal Rental Car hereby move this court, in limine, before jury selection at the trials commencement for an order instructing plaintiff, his counsel, and each and every one of plaintiffs witnesses, not to mention, interrogate on, or in any other manner, convey to the jury whether during voir dire, opening statement, testimony, final argument, or otherwise, any reference to or evidence of police accident report writing standards as evidence that the two consecutive bus accidents that are the subject of this litigation actually constituted a single event.

It is anticipated that plaintiff and his experts will reference police accident report writing standards as evidence for his contention that the bus accident at the intersection of Seminary and International involving defendants vehicle and the following bus accident half a block away in which the bus ran into residences across the street, were a single event caused exclusively by defendant Williams. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

One of plaintiffs accident reconstruction experts referenced CHP accident reporting standards to support his opinion that these bus accidents constitute a single event. Defendant contends that these were two separate accidents albeit they were consecutive and that they both involved the same bus.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Files Lawsuit Against Bus Company For Accident, Part 1 of 4" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff's own medical expert, Dr. Levine, testified that the basis for his opinion (of injury) was only as good as the facts upon which they were based, i.e. the history and reports provided by plaintiff. As indicated above, plaintiff's reporting was replete with distortions and omissions, including but not limited to her failure to reveal to Dr. Levine a subsequent trip and fall for which she sought treatment with a chiropractor for four months. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Finally, plaintiff walked with a prominent limp in front of the jury at all times during the six-day trial. She testified that her limp was always present, both in and out of the courtroom. She was then directly impeached with videotape, shown to the jury, depicting her walking freely and uninhibited, without a cane, just days before the trial commenced. Even without all the additional evidence as discussed above, the video evidence alone was a sufficient basis on which to conclude that plaintiff was not credible and was not truthful in claiming injury in this case.

After hearing all evidence discussed above, the jury held that plaintiff had sustained no injury as a result of the negligence of defendants. California law requires that, in order to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, there must be "no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict" rendered by the jury.

Continue reading "Court Must Evaluate Evidence In Sacramento Car Accident Case, Part 9 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff still claims, in current moving papers, that her bus was "rammed" by defendant's vehicle. In sharp contrast, the jury was shown photographs, copies of which are attached, which clearly reflect that defendant's vehicle merely scraped along the left front cover of the bus. Further evidence established that no hidden or structural damage occurred to the bus. Damage to defendant's van was minor, estimated at approximately $100. Common sense and inferences drawn from such evidence allowed the jury to conclude that no injury would result from the impact.

Defendant called Dr. Edward Stein, a physicist, to reinforce the unlikelihood of injury. Dr. Stein convincingly and completely refuted plaintiff's claim of injury. He testified as to the force of the collision, and explained to the jury that plaintiff would have experienced a vibration in her seat inside the 40-foot bus due to contact from defendant's vehicle. Similarly, Officer Brown testified that plaintiff may have been jostled by the contact between vehicles, but that he did not believe that plaintiff could have been injured.

Medical evidence established that plaintiff originally complained of minor contusion type injuries immediately following the accident. By the time of trial, plaintiff's claims had expanded to include significant problems in her neck, low back, left hip, left buttocks, left thigh, left shin, left foot, left shoulder, headaches, and post traumatic stress disorder. Medical records prepared by plaintiff's own providers note that plaintiff was an unreliable reporter, and prone to misrepresentation, exaggeration, and inconsistent reporting of symptoms. Plaintiff's gross overreaching was made clear in evidence to the jury and undoubtedly contributed to erosion of plaintiff's credibility.

Continue reading "Multiple Experts Battle Over Injuries To Sacramento Accident Victim, Part 8 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SUPPORTS THE JURY'S VERDICT AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AS SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 629 allows for a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and provides that the court "shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made." For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In considering such motions, California Courts uniformly hold that such motions shall be granted only when there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the verdict rendered. In Newing v. Cheatham (1975) 124 C.R. 193, the court held as follows:

A directed verdict may be granted, when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in fayor of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it can be said that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of such party, if such a verdict has been rendered. 124 C.R. at 198.

Continue reading "Multiple Victims In Sacramento Bus And Car Accident, Part 7 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

At trial, plaintiff proved herself to be a poor historian who could not get her facts straight. She could not remember details of a slip-and-fall in a liquor store after the bus accident. She testified that she made no claim for the subsequent injury, but documents produced at trial proved that a claim was made against Hartford Insurance Company. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff exhibited a prominent limp during trial and used a cane at all times in the presence of the jury. She testified that she was unable to walk without a cane and that her limp was always present, in and out of the courtroom. However, four days of surveillance videotape of plaintiff taken immediately before trial began showed plaintiff walking without a limp and without a cane 3 of the 4 days. The only time plaintiff walked with a cane on the videotape was as she was coming out of her lawyer's office on the day prior to trial.

The jury was interviewed post-verdict by both plaintiff and defense counsel. Plaintiff's counsel asked a group of jurors why they ruled that plaintiff was not injured in the accident. One of the jurors responded, observation.”

Continue reading "Sacramento Accident Victim Challenges Jury Verdict, Part 6 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Dr. Jones's first report was written without benefit of review of medical records. In Dr. Jones's second August 27, 2002 report, following his review of records, Dr. Jones notes plaintiff's inconsistent and migrating symptoms as reported in records. He notes that records suggest multiple contusion type injuries during the accident. He also notes inconsistencies in the pain reported by plaintiff and plaintiff's reported contact with the interior of the bus during the accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In Dr. Jones's January 3, 2005, third and final report, following review of additional records, Dr. Jones notes that records reveal no anatomic basis for plaintiff's back pain or leg pain. He further opines that Dr. Levine's contrary opinions are unfounded and scientifically invalid. He notes that Dr. Cink agrees that plaintiff has no objective findings to support symptoms and states that Dr. Cink's conclusions regarding disability are significantly weakened by the disproportionate symptoms and paucity or absence of objective findings. The disability rating that he opined seems excessive absent any identifiable objective findings.”

Continue reading "Doctor Claims Sacramento Accident Victim's Injuries Are Exaggerated, Part 5 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Dr. Jones testified that there were absolutely no objective findings of injury at the time of his medical examination. He testified that references in his medical reports to plaintiff having sustained a strain/sprain injury in the accident were based solely upon history provided by plaintiff and not independent findings. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In plaintiff's moving papers, she cites Dr. Jones's July 18, 2002 report where he notes, "Ms. Perry merely sustained mild sprain, strain and contusion type injuries" as evidence that plaintiff was injured. As noted above, Dr. Jones testified that the diagnosis relied upon by plaintiff was based upon the medical history provided by plaintiff and was not supported by any objective findings on examination. The quote from Dr. Jones's report is essentially just Dr. Jones's acknowledgment that plaintiff gave a history of contusion and sprain/strain type complaints.

The overwhelming opinion of Dr. Jones was that plaintiff suffers "a clearly factitious pain disorder." "Factitious" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "sham" produced by humans rather than by "natural forces"; or produced by special effort. Dr. Jones substantiates this opinion with numerous references in his initial report to plaintiff's exaggerated examination responses and inconsistent and nonsensical behavior at examination. Specifically, Dr. Jones noted that plaintiff was waiving her trunk forward and backward while sitting on the edge of her chair during examination, but later, during examination of the low back, she moved the same parts of her body as though she were writhing in pain .

Continue reading "Accident Victim's Injures Challenged By Sacramento Automobile Driver, Part 4 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Photographs in evidence included pictures of the County Transit Authority Bus which plaintiff was operating at the time of the collision. Photographs revealed mere scraping damage to the left front corner and some damage to a protruding side view mirror. Repair estimates produced at trial revealed no structural damage to the bus.

Defendant called the owner of the van driven by defendant at trial. The owner testified that the only damage to the van was to the right side view mirror. He estimated damage at approximately $100. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendants also called Dr. Edward Stein, a physicist, to testify with regard to causation. Dr. Stein testified that the force of the collision between the delivery van and the 40-foot bus would have resulted in plaintiff merely feeling a "vibration" in her seat. He stated that a glass of water on the dashboard would not have spilled as a result of he impact. He further testified that the bus would have only rocked slightly as a result of contact between the vehicles.

Continue reading "Pedestrian, Van, And Bus Involved In Sacramento Collision, Part 3 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

FACTS

This case arises from an accident involving a bus, a van, and a pedestrian, which occurred on November 13, 2002. Trial of this matter commenced on March 26, 2005, the Honorable David Black presiding.

Evidence at trial established that the subject accident occurred when defendant Smith swerved in an attempt to avoid striking a pedestrian, defendant Tina Greene. As he swerved, the front right comer of defendant Smith's van scraped against the front right corner of a city bus operated by plaintiff.

At trial, plaintiff claimed extensive personal injuries, including soft tissue injury to her neck and back, and wage loss commencing at the time of the subject accident and continuing to and ongoing at the time of trial. At trial, defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith denied liability, and asserted that the subject accident did not generate force sufficient to cause injury and that plaintiff sustained no injury as a result of the accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The jury found that Randy Smith was negligent but found that such negligence was not the cause of injury and damage to plaintiff.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Injured When Van Collides With Bus, Part 2 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff presented claims for personal injury over the course of a six-day trial. During trial, evidence presented established that plaintiff was making exorbitant claims as a result of a minor scraping contact against the front right corner of a bus she was driving. Evidence further established that plaintiff has exaggerated and misrepresented claims and facts throughout this case. For example, the jury watched plaintiff limp in front of them with a cane for several days, and then saw videotape evidence of plaintiff walking freely and uninhibited without a cane taken just days before trial commenced. Based on all evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff suffered no injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Clearly frustrated at having been exposed for misrepresentation and deception, plaintiff now moves for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claiming that undisputed medical evidence establishes that she sustained an injury.

Continue reading "Sacramento Bus Driver Injured In Auto Collision, Part 1 of 9" »

The recent public apology by Toyota's chief was overdue as the automaker was forced to recall millions of vehicles that could potentially malfunction (obviously, some already have), possibly causing injury to the occupants as well as other drivers sharing the road.

Toyota's president emerged from seclusion Friday to apologize and address criticism that the automaker mishandled a crisis over sticking gas pedals. Yet he stopped short of ordering a recall for the company's iconic Prius hybrid for braking problems.

Akio Toyoda, appointed to the top job at Toyota Motor Corp. last June, promised to beef up quality control, saying, "We are facing a crisis."

Toyoda, grandson of the company's founder, said he personally would head a special committee to review checks within the company, go over consumer complaints and listen to outside experts to come up with a fix.

"I apologize from the bottom of my heart for all the concern that we have given to so many customers," said Toyoda, speaking at his first news conference since the Jan. 21 global recall of 4.5 million vehicles.

Continue reading "Toyota Chief Offers Apology For Recent Car Accidents And California Recall" »