Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

DISCUSSION

California Evidence Code Section 720 requires that an expert must have "special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates."

Mr. Hall has no education, experience or other qualifications as an engineer, and does not otherwise qualify to determine impact speeds, vehicle speeds, change in velocity of the vehicles, or the forces involved in the collision. Mr. Hall did not examine the accident scene, nor is there a police report in this case that would have provided him with physical evidence at the scene of the accident. His methodology for computing speeds was to look at photographs of the damage to the respective vehicles, use a magnifying glass to estimate the amount of inches of damage, and then utilize a formula on a preprinted form entitled "Low Speed Collsion (sic) Worksheet"; however, the formula begins with an estimated value of .25 for a coefficient of restitution, which he supplied based upon his memory of having read such a value on a NHTSA website for 2001-2006 Honda Civic automobiles.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Experts Battle In Sacramento Man's Car Accident Trial, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Plaintiffs John and Anna Greene’s Motion in Limine Number1 to Exclude Testimony of Bill Hall

INTRODUCTION

Defendants have designated Bill Hall, as an expert witness, who intends to give opinions on matters that are far beyond his qualifications and far beyond his expertise. Mr. Hall has no formal education beyond high school, and had worked as a police officer for the city of Sacramento for 15 years. Although Mr. Hall has taken some courses in accident reconstruction, there are no accident reconstruction issues in this case. This case involves a very clear rear end impact to a stopped vehicle. Extracts from Mr. Hall's deposition relating to his lack of qualifications are referenced herein.

Mr. Hall intends to give unqualified opinions in the following areas:

1. An engineering analysis, that calculates the speed of the two vehicles involved in the collision, based upon vehicle damage photographs that he reviewed months after the collision and engineering formulae and concepts that he is not qualified to analyze; and,

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Involved In Rear End Car Accident, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

ARGUMENT

Dr. Lee's opinions about the reasonableness of Plaintiff's medical bills must be excluded, California Evidence Code § 803, because they are not based on special knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or matters perceived by, or personally known or made known to him, that are if a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming such opinions, California Evidence Code § 801(b).

In his deposition, Dr. Lee admitted that he had no access or exposure to Plaintiff's medical bills or any other relevant information, Naples Restaurant, Inc. v Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 881, 66 Cal Rptr 835, that his opinions are based solely on irrelevant, conjectural and speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47, Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9, and that he has no experience or expertise in the relevant subject matter, Maatuk v. Guttman (2009) 173 Cal App 4th 1191, 93 Cal Rptr 3d 381.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Tries To Deny Payment Of Sacramento Woman's Car Accident Expenses, Part 7 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS, AND THOSE OPINIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE

A plaintiff may introduce evidence of the amounts billed by health care providers, because they reflect on the nature and extent of his or her injuries, help jurors assess overall general damages, and give them an accurate picture of the extent of the plaintiffs injuries Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 298; Greer v. Hossam Ali Buzgheia, (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1150; 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal App 4th 1288.

On the other hand, it is reversible error to allow a defendant to admit collateral source cash payments into evidence, limit Plaintiffs' recovery of special damages for medical expenses to the amounts paid by a financial services company to purchase the accounts from medical providers, or prevent the plaintiff from arguing to the jury that the full amounts billed represent the reasonable value of the medicals services provided, Olsen v. Reid, (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 200; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1288.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Catastrophic Medical Costs At Issue In Sacramento Woman's Auto Accident Lawsuit, Part 6 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THOSE OPINIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE.

The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will:

(a) necessitate undue consumption of time, or

(b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury, California Evidence Code § 352.

A trial judge must balance the probative value of the proffered evidence against its prejudicial effect in the context of the case before the court, considering materiality, the strength of the relationship to the issue on which it is offered, and whether it is necessary to prove the proponent's case or merely cumulative to other available and sufficient proof, Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal App 3d 768, 150 Cal Rptr 419. Evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial, when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, and motivate them to use the information to reward or punish one side, rather than logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal App 4th 998, 62 Cal Rptr 2d 164.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Doctor's Opinion At Issue In Sacramento Car Accident Case, Part 5 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

An expert must base his opinion either on facts personally observed or on hypotheses that find support in the evidence; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. (1968) 69 Cal 2d 33, 69 Cal Rptr 561, 442 P2d 641, and not on irrelevant, conjectural, or speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47.

Thus, in personal injury actions against lawn mower and tire manufacturers experts were not permitted to testify about articles and statistical surveys dealing with other mowers and tire failures, where the proponent of the evidence failed to show any similarity between the other tire failures and mower accidents, none of the material the experts consulted constituted the type of professional technical literature that reasonably may be relied on by an expert in forming an opinion, and the opinions were based on mere speculation, Luque v McLean (1972) 8 Cal 3d 136, 104 Cal Rptr 443, 501 P2d 1163; Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Victim Challenges Medical Experts, Part 4 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THIS COURT MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. LEE'S TESTIMONY, OUT OF THE PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY

(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article;

(b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury;

(c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute, California Evidence Code §402.

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR HIS OPINIONS.

If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is:

(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Experts Battle In Sacramento Car Accident Case, Part 3 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

INTRODUCTION

On March 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Motion in Limine regarding collateral source payments was discussed. It is plaintiffs understanding that the issue was taken under submission, and on March 8, 2011, the court tentatively indicated that the court may entertain a motion post trial to reduce any finding of medical specials, based on amounts paid. However, the amount of medical billings would be admissible at trial.

In this case, when Dr. Lee was deposed on August 28, 2010, he was asked, "Have you reviewed those medical bills relating to Robyn Anderson's treatment in this case?"
Answer: I have reviewed some of them and commented on some.

Question: Okay. In preparation for today's deposition, did you go through and do a line-item-by-line-item commentary on her bills to date?
Answer: No. I did not.

Question: But if I understand you correctly, you haven't been provided by defense counsel with a packet of the billing with the intention of you going through and commenting on that billing; is that correct?
Answer: Right. I have not been provided a packet of just the billing and provided a comment on those specific bills. That's correct.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Injuries In Car Accident, Part 2 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Plaintiff Robyn Anderson’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants' Expert Witness, Stanley Lee, M.D., from Expressing Opinions as to the Reasonableness of Plaintiff's Medical Bills

Plaintiff Robyn Anderson respectfully request that this court hear and determine the question of the admissibility of the following evidence, out of the presence or hearing of the jury, pursuant to California Evidence Code § 402, and issue an order, in limine, prohibiting Defendants' expert witness, Stanley Lee, M.D., from expressing opinions as to the reasonableness of Plaintiffs medical bills.

This motion is made on the grounds that any opinions and conclusions on this subject would lack foundation and be based on mere speculation, California Evidence Code § 803, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time and create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury, per California Evidence Code §352.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Automobile Driver Struck And Injured By School Bus, Part 1 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

ITEM NO. 12 FOR COURT REPORTER FEES IS ALLOWABLE BY STATUTE.

Finally, defendant objects to plaintiff's cost Item No. 12 for the fees charged by the official court reporter of this trial. At the conclusion of the case, plaintiff submitted a check to the clerk of the court in the amount of $2,483 directly for payment of the official court reporter fees.
Pursuant to Government Code section 68086(a)(1), such a fee was required by statute:

"(a) The following provisions apply in Superior Court:(1) In addition to any other fee required in civil actions or cases, for each proceeding lasting more than one hour, a fee equal to the actual cost of providing that service shall be charged per one-half day of service to the parties, on a prorata basis, for the services of an official court reporter on the first and each succeeding judicial day." Obviously the services of the official court reporter are required by law and were paid by plaintiff and are therefore recoverable.

CONCLUSION

Here, defendant chose to turn down an eminently fair settlement offer and instead elected to go to great expense in fighting liability and damages in this case by extremely expensive defense expert witnesses. Additionally, defendant wasted substantial court assets and time in insisting upon a two-week jury trial that could have been resolved far less expensively.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Litigation Costs Become Issue After Sacramento Car Accident Victim Wins Trial, Part 5 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

PLAINTIFF'S COST BILL FOR MODELS AND EXHIBITS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,987.62 IS INHERENTLY REASONABLE.

Plaintiff's cost bill Item No. 11 documents the costs for models and exhibits used at trial in the total amount of $4,987.62. For presentation of evidence in a two-week jury trial involving hundreds of documents and dozens of blow-ups, such costs are on their face entirely reasonable. Defendant's argument that these costs are excessive is not supported by any evidence other than the argument of counsel. For example, counsel argues that plaintiff should have instead used the Elmo exhibit as opposed to actual blow-ups. This seems to be a reverse of defendant's prior argument that plaintiff should not have used high-tech gadgetry (such as Elmos), but instead should rely upon low-tech presentations such as blow-ups.

As the court will recall, blow-ups were used with virtually every witness called by plaintiff and were extremely helpful to the jury in the presentation of the evidence in this case. In contrast, the quality of the Elmo in the courtroom was less than ideal and was remote in distance from the jury box. Ultimately, the jurors received into evidence a number of blow-ups that assisted them in their deliberations. (See Part 5 of 5.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

In essence, defendant argues that the expert witness bill from ABC Engineering should be substantially cut because Mr. Ridley Hall used computer programs to create an animation and blow-ups that were used at trial. The argument goes on to sate that such a presentation could have been done by less expensive, low-tech means . No explanation, however, is given by defendant as to how computer modeling and a computer-based animation could have been done less expensively to communicate the same thing. Obviously, due to evidentiary foundational requirements, Mr. Hall had to base his animation on appropriate documentation and evidence in order to create an accurate reconstruction of the subject accident. There is no declaration submitted by defendant by any competent expert that says that the computerized accident reconstruction could be done at a more reasonable expense or using "low-tech means."

In fact, the jury found that Mr. Hall's presentation was so important that they asked for the animation to be replayed during their deliberations. All of Mr. Hall's computer-created exhibits were painstakingly used one by one during his testimony, as was his animation.
The case cited by defendant, El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, Inc., (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 612, actually supports the type of evidence that was used in this trial:

The problem with the electronic equipment and the labor costs rejected in Science Applications, as we understand it, was that these were more expensive methods of doing things that could be done by less-expensive, low-tech means, and therefore they were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation but were "merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation." (§1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Catastrophically Injured Sacramento Man Sues After Car Acident, Part 3 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 998 IS TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENTS AND TO PUNISH A PARTY WHO FAILS TO ACCEPT A REASONABLE OFFER FROM THE OTHER PARTY.

In Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 C al.App.3rd 692, the court spent considerable time evaluating the purpose of Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The court noted as follows:

"Section 998 should be interpreted so as to effectuate its purpose of encouraging the settlement of lawsuits before trial." Section 998 achieves its aim by punishing a party who fails to accept a reasonable offer from the other party. 195 Cal.App.3rd at 698-699.

In this case, the parties could have avoided an extremely expensive and time-consuming two-week jury trial had defendant and his insurance carrier accepted an entirely reasonable offer that is nearly half of what the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Man Injured In Auto Accident, Part 2 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Plaintiff Tammy Greene's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs

INTRODUCTION

As the court is well aware, this was a very serious automobile injury, disputed liability case, with a major defense mounted by defendant Li. To boil defendant's Motion to Tax Costs down to its essence, Li complains that plaintiff's expert witness presentation was too expensive and the court should therefore not exercise its discretion to award expert witness fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §998. What Li's motion fails to point out is that the defense experts charged even higher fees, as is reflected in the trial transcript. Just to cite one example, defense expert witness Walter Brown, who testified all of 15 minutes at trial, and charged well in excess of $10,000 for his services in rendering an opinion as to whether the lights were on or off on the plaintiff's Lexus. Had defendant been the prevailing party in this case, there is little doubt they would have been asking for expert witness costs well in excess of the amount requested on plaintiff's cost bill.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Seriously Injured In Car Accident, Part 1 of 5" »

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" »