Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

Relatedly, the courts have recognized that the potential for jury confusion and prejudice is particularly acute in cases like this one, where the plaintiff proposes to spend far more time talking about conduct that affected other parties than the conduct that affected the plaintiff. The risk of prejudice from other acts evidence increases tremendously when the plaintiff is permitted to make that evidence the centerpiece of her punitive damages presentation. Holdgrafer, 160 Cal. App. 4th at 934. The Second District, for example, noted that [t]he vast majority of the evidence presented in the punitive damages phase, and counsel's arguments to the jury, related to evidence of conduct that did not harm the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' counsel began his closing argument by recounting the evidence in great detail, the court noted, and it dominated the rest of his presentation. Id. For that reason, the court concluded, the improper admission of other-acts evidence was particularly prejudicial and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See also State Farm, 538 U.S. at 420, 423 (noting that [f]rom their opening statements onward the Campbells framed this case as a chance to rebuke State Farm for its nationwide activities, but identified scant evidence of repeated misconduct of the sort that injured them ); Durham, 360 S.C. at 653 ( Further, the evidence is inflammatory, especially in light of the fact that the [other acts] evidence was the only evidence admitted during the punitive damages phase. ).

Continue reading "Tobacco Company Sued By Sacramento-Area Woman, Part 7 of 7" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed a punitive damages award and remanded for a new trial in a suit against an insurance company alleged to have made a bad-faith effort to settle a auto-injury claim, because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of the defendant's allegedly similar effort to stonewall another claimant. Citing State Farm, the court held that the evidence was improperly admitted because the Constitution sharply limit[s] the use of evidence of other transgressions to prove entitlement to punitive damages. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 179 S.W.3d 815, 819 (Ky. 2005).

In each of the above cases, just as in this case, the plaintiff wished to tell the jury about other acts the defendant committed, beyond the acts that caused the harm for which compensatory damages were awarded. In each of the above cases, just as in this case, there was a plausible connection between those acts and the conduct that harmed the plaintiff. In each of the above cases, just as in this case, the plaintiff was able to describe a course of conduct that encompassed both the conduct that harmed him and the evidence of other acts. And in each of the above cases, the appellate courts eventually held that it was error to admit the evidence of other acts.

Indeed, there are striking parallels between the evidence that plaintiff wants to introduce here and the evidence at issue in the above cases. Just as the plaintiff in this case argues that USA Tobacco engaged in a decades-long scheme of fraudulently inducing consumers to buy dangerous defective products, the plaintiff in State Farm claimed that the defendant had a national scheme to meet corporate fiscal goals by capping payouts on claims company wide. And just as plaintiff in this case argues that USA Tobacco blames anything and anyone except itself for the results of its conduct, the Holdgrafer plaintiffs argued that the evidence of other oil spills demonstrated a company policy of denying responsibility for such accidents. Time and again, the appellate courts have rejected these arguments. Even where other bad acts are sufficiently connected to the conduct that harmed the plaintiff to be marginally relevant to demonstrate the reprehensibility of that conduct, the potential for prejudice usually far outweighs the probative value.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Suit Filed By Sacramento-Area Woman, Part 6 of 7" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

3. Other cases
Holdgrafer is far from the only post-State Farm appellate decision vacating a punitive award after holding that other acts evidence was improperly admitted. Courts around the country have repeatedly done the same:

The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered a new trial on punitive damages in a case brought against a chemical manufacturer by farmers whose wheat crops were rendered unfit for sale when they were sprayed with an insecticide that was later determined to be unsafe for use on wheat. The plaintiffs had introduced evidence that the defendant had recommended the product for use not only on plaintiffs' farms, but also on various other farms in Mississippi. The Court held that this evidence should not have been admitted, because it improperly invited the jury to impose punishment for conduct that harmed farmers other than the plaintiff. See FMC Corp. v. Helton, 360 Ark. 465 (2005).

The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated a punitive award in a negligence suit brought against a drunk driver because the trial court had allowed the jury to hear evidence of the defendant's other DUI arrests. That court recognized that evidence of the defendant's similar acts might, in rare situation[s], assist the jury in determining the level of punitive damages necessary to deter future transgressions. But, citing State Farm, the court held that any relevance which [the defendant's] subsequent acts could have had upon the issue of punitive damages was substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury would use this evidence to punish [him] for his subsequent acts instead of the conduct that gave rise to [the plaintiffs] actual damages. Wohlwend v. Edwards, 796 N.E. 2d 781,785, 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

Continue reading "Roseville Woman Seeking Punitive Damages, Part 5 of 7" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

After hearing this evidence and argument, the jury returned a $10 million punitive award that the trial court reduced to $5 million. The Second District reversed, holding that it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the two other spills. Even though that evidence also involved damage from oil spills and Unocal's refusal to compensate landowners for their damages in a timely manner, the other cases were different from the Holdgrafers': they involved different kinds of leaks, different kinds of contamination, different company personnel, different responses, and different methods of avoiding responsibility. The Court of Appeal therefore held that the evidence was too dissimilar to shed significant light on the reprehensibility of the conduct that had actually harmed the plaintiff, and that to the extent it was marginally relevant, its potential for prejudice far outweighed its probative value. (See Cal. Evid. Code § 352.) The court vacated the award and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages.

This reasoning tracks the California courts' application of Evidence Code § 1101, which provides that character evidence is inadmissible to prove that the defendant engaged in misconduct consistent with that bad character on the occasion at issue in the trial. In Clark v. Optical Coating Lab., Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 150 (2008), the First District explained that Section 1101 applies to corporate defendants and precludes a plaintiff from offering evidence of a defendant's other bad acts absent a showing of distinctive similarities or common features between the two instances of conduct. Id. at 175. Applying that rule, the court held that evidence of groundwater contamination at the defendant's own facility was inadmissible in support of the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant had disposed of chemicals improperly on the plaintiffs' property. Id. at 174-75.

Continue reading "Tobacco Company Challenges Punitive Damages Award For Sacramento-Area Woman, Part 4 of 7" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

2. Holdgrafer v. Unocal
In Holdgrafer, decided by the Court of Appeal for the Second District, the defendant was Unocal, an oil company that owned a network of undergrounds oil pipes throughout California. The plaintiffs, who owned a plot of land adjacent to one of Unocal's facilities, claimed that their property had become contaminated by oil leaks from Unocal's facilities. A jury awarded $2.5 million in compensatory damages.

In support of their punitive damages claim, the plaintiffs introduced evidence of two other oil spills that had occurred elsewhere in California. Those spills caused considerable damage to wildlife and wetlands, and there was evidence that Unocal had intentionally concealed the severity of the contamination and its own responsibility. Like the plaintiff in State Farm, the Holdgrafer plaintiffs justified their introduction of this evidence by arguing that it undermined Unocal's claims of innocent mistake: they contended that Unocal's conduct toward them was part of a company policy of concealing its responsibility for oil leaks and spills. At one point, for example, plaintiffs' counsel asked the jury: You gonna buy this story that they're giving you that it's just a simple act of negligence, that all this evidence that we put on of the [other] spill[s] and the misrepresentations ... is just simple negligence? I got a word for it. Baloney. 160 Cal. App. 4th at 934.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages An Issue In Wrongful Death Case For Roseville Plaintiff, Part 3 of 7" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

1. State Farm v. Campbell
The first case to explicitly discuss the use of other acts evidence for purposes of assessing reprehensibility in punitive damages trials was the United States Supreme Court's decision in State Farm. That case was a suit against an insurance company brought by one of its former policyholders for bad-faith failure to settle a personal-injury claim against the policyholder.

The jury found for the plaintiff on compensatory liability and damages. During the punitive phase, State Farm defended by asserting that its initial refusal to settle was an honest mistake. The plaintiff countered by introducing evidence showing that State Farm had a policy of stonewalling in cases like his: the plaintiff alleged that for 20 years, State Farm had engaged in a national scheme to meet corporate fiscal goals by capping payouts on claims company wide. (538 U.S. at 415.) Over State Farm's objections, the trial judge allowed this evidence so that the jury could determine whether State Farm's conduct in the Campbell case was indeed intentional and sufficiently egregious to warrant punitive damages - i.e., because the court thought it bore on the reprehensibility of State Farm's conduct toward the Campbells. Id. The jury evidently believed that State Farm's conduct was reprehensible: it returned a $145 million punitive damages award.

After several levels of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certioriari and vacated the punitive award. The Court did not question the jury's evident conclusion that State Farm's corporate practices were reprehensible, but it held that the Constitution does not permit juries to use punitive damages awards in individual lawsuits to punish nationwide behavior directed at large groups of theoretical plaintiffs.

Continue reading "Sacramento-Area Woman Shows Reprehensible Conduct By Tobacco Company, Part 2 of 7" »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

Defendant's Bench Brief on the Relevance of "Dissimilar Conduct" Evidence to "Reprehensibility"

Plaintiff acknowledges, as she must, that there has been a sea change in the governing constitutional law since this case was tried in 2002. The United States Supreme Court has now held - and the California Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal for the Second District have recognized - that a jury in an individual lawsuit may not impose punitive damages to punish conduct that did not harm the plaintiff. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 35 Cal. 4th 1191, 1203-04 (2005); Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp., 160 Cal. App. 4th 907 (2008); M. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 655, 701 (2008)).

Nevertheless, plaintiff claims that she is permitted to try the same case as she did in 2001 - when the proceedings were dominated by evidence of conduct that could not have harmed Nancy M. - because such evidence is relevant to demonstrate the reprehensibility of the conduct that did harm her. For plaintiff, reprehensibility has become a magic word: in her view, once a jury has determined that USA Tobacco harmed Ms. M., any arguably "reprehensible" conduct the company ever committed - no matter how tangentially related to Ms. M.'s actual injuries - can be paraded before the jury to underlie a claim for punitive damages.

But reprehensibility is not a magical incantation that allows in all bad company evidence. The jury's task is to assess reprehensibility of the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not the world at large. Plaintiff rarely cites actual case law in support of her that bears on reprehensibility argument. That is because the cases that discuss the relevance of this sort of evidence are all cases in which the appellate courts reversed - either by massively reducing punitive awards on appeal, or by granting new trials altogether.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Claim Against Tobacco Company By Roseville Family, Part 1 of 7" »

The answer, to some degree, depends on the circumstances of your particular accident. However, there are some general guidelines that should help you determine what to do after you have been injured. Not every situation will be covered here, but this should help make the process a little less stressful and confusing.

What you do following an automobile accident is illustrative of many other situations in which you've been injured as the result of another's negligence.

Let's focus on automobile collisions in which you believe the other driver is at fault. If you are still at the accident scene, and your physical condition allows it, make sure you exchange insurance information with the other driver. By doing so you are already protecting yourself in case you need to recover for any injuries or property damage. Unless the damage to you and your vehicle is obviously inconsequential, you should next make sure some law enforcement agency responds to the scene and makes a report.

More often than not the responding officer or deputy will interview the involved parties and any possible witnesses. Do your best to be very clear about what happened. If the incident report finds the other driver at fault you will stand a better chance of recovering for your injuries. Most reports are available within two weeks of the accident. Do yourself a favor and get a copy of the report as soon as possible. If you contact an attorney to seek representation, that report will help the attorney evaluate your case.

Continue reading "What Do I Do If I've Been Injured In An Automobile Accident in California?" »

Could you imagine sitting in your lovely little Store, tending to customers or stocking the shelves with your newest products. You're just Minding your own business, and having a regular day, when suddenly a van drives through the front door of your store. Glass shatters everywhere, Products are smashed under the tires of the van, and possibly someone is horribly injured by the van as well. To most people this sounds more like a nightmare than something that could actually happen to someone, but that wasn't the case for two women in Sacramento CA. This nightmare became a reality when The two women were sitting in their Hair Salon working a normal day, when a man ran his van into the front window.

According to an article on New10.net:

The van careened through the front door of the salon connected to the Tops 'n Bottoms clothing store on the 5200 block of Fruitridge Road around 3 p.m. Saturday, Sacramento police Sgt. Norm Leong said.

Leong said the owner and her niece were inside the store when the van crashed inside.

"He hit it full speed," said Tops 'n Bottoms owner. "There was no brake-pressing or anything like that."

Witnesses said one of the women was trapped under the van and screaming before being rescued by passing pedestrians.

"I saw a young lady crawling out with blood all over her face," Richardson said. "It was definitely crazy."

Both victims were taken to the hospital with injuries.
Officers arrested the driver of the van, 55-year-old Johnny Walker, on possible DUI charges. Walker also faced charges on an outstanding warrant for drug possession in an unrelated case, Leong said.

Investigators were looking into what led to the crash.

Tops n' Bottoms owner said he had seen at least six or seven traffic accidents on the busy Fruitridge stretch near his store since he took over three months ago. He hoped city officials would take a hard look at traffic through the area.

"They really do need to govern these streets a little more, add a light or two, a stop sign, something," Tops n' Bottoms owner said.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a drunk driving accident, Sacramento Personal Injury Attorney Moseley Collins can help you. For the past 27 years, he has been helping victims like you receive what they are owed and need to recover and put their lives back together.

Call the Law Office of Moseley Collins at 916-444-4444, or visit our website at www.moseleycollins.com. There is never a fee until we win your case.

Christmas Eve a house exploded in Rancho Cordova, right off Highway 50 between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe. One elderly man was killed and five other people were injured. As a Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer and a resident of this area, it is very alarming when a home mysteriously blows up, a home that could have easily been mine or a family members. To lose your home is a very tragic and difficult thing to have to deal with, I personally have had to go through a house fire explosion. Though ours was a complete mystery, there has been some speculation that this Rancho Cordova house explosion could of been the result of a gas leak.

According to CBS 13 News:

The explosion sent three victims to the University of California, Davis medical complex in Sacramento in critical condition.

One of those victims, Wilbert Paana, 72, suffered a severe abdominal injuries and has died, according to hospital spokeswoman Phyllis Brown.

Brown identified the other burn victims as Kim Dickson, in her mid-40s, who is in critical condition, and 17-year-old Sunny Dickson, who was transferred later in the day to nearby Shriners Hospital for Children.

Officials could not immediately say where the Dicksons and Paana were when the home exploded.

Two others, including a utility worker, had lesser injuries.

A firefighter was also injured and taken to Mercy San Juan Medical Center. He was treated and released.

John Turner, who lives in a duplex about two blocks from the leveled home, said he heard "a big boom" shortly after 1:30 p.m.

"It sounded like something had fallen on my roof," he said in a telephone interview. "I saw flames about as high as the house next door ... the smoke was billowing from that area."

Turner, 30, said he did not smell anything but saw two PG&E trucks near the explosion site when he walked out of his house.

Joe Helton, 33, said he was one of the first to arrive at the destroyed home and saw a woman from the house.

"I asked her if there was anybody else in the house and she said her dad was in the house. So I ran to where the garage was, but it was pretty much smoke and fire in there," he said.

Helton said he helped two next-door neighbors get out of their house and sat the injured PG&E worker down in a chair. He and others then discovered a man buried under wood shingles and debris about 10 feet from the sidewalk.

"We started pulling stuff away. You couldn't even tell he was there; the stuff was covering him," Helton said.

As a Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins specializes in serious personal injury cases and/or wrongful death cases. We believe that if you or a loved one have been seriously injured and your not at fault, you have the right to obtain an experienced personal injury attorney. Hiring an experienced injury lawyer will help you win the money to pay for medical care, and other expenses resulting from your accident.

Call the Law Office of Moseley Collins at 916-444-4444, or visit our website at www.moseleycollins.com. There is never a fee until we win your case.

You tend to not notice linesman working on telephone poles as it is a common sight, just part of the landscape here in Sacramento, California, as you drive by.

Most of today’s line work takes place out of a bucket truck or on ladders but there are still a lot of folks climbing poles to keep the utility systems running everyday.

It is a dangerous job. Interestingly, those linesmen who work at lower altitudes like telephone lines at 20 feet above the ground, have more falling accidents than their power line brothers who work at 40 feet and higher. The explanation is that the lower height linesmen become more careless and take more shortcuts to get the job done.

In any case, whenever any linesman falls, as soon as the lineman reports the accident to the supervisor (assuming they are not already in an emergency room) the linesman is sent off to see a doctor. Even when the linesman says they feel fine, no problems, the company insists on sending them to be checked by a doctor. They do this because they, the company, know that an expert opinion is absolutely necessary to ensure that no damage has been done to the employee. Most linesmen are not physicians and are not experienced enough to make the call.

Are these companies simply pro-employee or are they simply doing what is necessary to ensure employee productivity and avoid legal exposure? Most likely they are all of these things. Constructing and maintaining aerial utility lines are their business and they know what they need to do to be successful.

Continue reading "High Risk California Jobs: Linesman" »

What are the legal issues involved when someone breaks an arm? Well that depends on a lot of things, a lot of variables. For example:

• A 12-year-old boy breaks his arm and cannot go swimming for 4 weeks. (Inconvenience or Disability?)
• A 29-year-old man breaks his arm and can not ride his motorcycle (or stick shift car). His motorcycle is his only means of transportation to get to his job. He is off work for 4 weeks and during that time his job is taken by another. (Inconvenience or Disability?)
• A 22-year-old administrative assistant breaks her right arm and cannot use her right hand to type or operate her computer mouse. She must shift to her left hand. Her productivity is cut in half until her arm heals. (Inconvenience or Disability?)
• A 68-year-old breaks an arm which invites infection during the healing process. The infection leads to complications which last for the next 12 months. Daily assistance is now required for cooking, cleaning and personal hygiene. (Inconvenience or Disability?)

So you see it really does depend on a lot of variables. But wait, there are even more variables, like who is responsible for the broken arm?

Continue reading "A Broken Arm in Sacramento" »