Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

These above cases dramatically demonstrate the principle that--much as every case is of course different and must be independently decided--awards of non-ecomonic damages in the range of $5.4 million (roughly adjusted for inflation) are limited to truly catastrophic injuries. And while Mr. Ward presented evidence at trial of back, neck, and knee injuries that cause significant pain and require surgery, Mr. Ward has produced no evidence of an injury which leaves him paralyzed or otherwise deprived of control over his life as an individual. In short, his injuries from the automobile acident are not catastrophic, and the jury's award of damages as if they were is not reasonable. Damages must be reduced substantially by this Court, or a new trial must be ordered. The same is true for plaintiff’s wife's award.

The Jury's $1.620 Million Loss of Consortium Damages Award to Ms. Ward Is Excessive

A wife's loss of consortium is comprised of her own physical, psychological and emotional pain and anguish which results when her husband is negligently injured to the extent that he is no longer capable of providing the love, affection, companionship, comfort or sexual relations concomitant with a normal married life. [Citation.] While triggered by the spouse's injury, a loss of consortium claim is separate and distinct, and not merely derivative or collateral to the spouse's cause of action. (Gapusan v. Jay (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 734, 742.)

The jury awarded a total of $1,620,000 to Ms. Ward for past and future loss of consortium. This amount is exactly 30% of the $5.4 million in non-economic damages awarded to Mr. Ward.

The loss of consortium award to Ms. Ward raises three immediate concerns. First, the jury clearly disregarded the independent nature of Ms. Ward's claim, by simply giving her a percentage of what it gave to Mr. Ward for his pain and suffering. Second, the determination of Ms. Ward's loss of consortium claim by way of a percentage of an entirely independent claim belonging to another person constitutes a clear violation of the rule against using mathematical formulas to arrive at a figure for damages. (See above.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Jury Awards Car Accident Victim's Wife Huge Sum For Loss Of Consortium, Part 14 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Further, non-economic damages awards that are similar in size to Mr. Ward's $5.4 million award are found only in cases involving injuries which exceed--and in some cases far exceed--his in terms of their severity. (Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516, 520-523 [$8.4 million in non-economic damages awarded to plaintiff who became a paraplegic as a result of truck accident];

Mendoza v. Car Club, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 292-293, 300 [court upholds jury award of $1 million in non-economic damages against manufacturer of golf cart whose parking brake malfunctioned, causing plaintiff to suffer a broken neck]; Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1232-1233 [court confirms jury award of $2.99 million in non-economic damages to plaintiff who suffered permanent paralysis from the waist down and chronic radiating pain as a result of being shot in the back]; Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, [court upholds $6 million in non-economic damages to 3 year-old for injuries suffered in auto accident rendering her paraplegic and severely brain damaged, but with normal life expectancy];

Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 641-642, 653-655 [22-year old plaintiff was hit in the head and back with a 630-pound pipe, rendering him triplegic, with loss of all movement, sexual function, bladder and bowel control, and in constant pain, but with normal life expectancy; jury awards total economic and non-economic damages of $4,235,996, which the reviewing court upholds]; Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230, 237, 241, 244 [court upholds jury's award of $1.6 million in non-economic damages for head injury to young boy resulting in irreversible total paralysis and inability to speak].) (See Part 14 of 14.)

Continue reading "Lifetime Injuries For Sacramento Automobile Accident Victim, Part 13 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Further, non-economic damages awards that are similar in size to Mr. Ward's $5.4 million award are found only in cases involving injuries which exceed--and in some cases far exceed--his in terms of their severity. (Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516, 520-523 [$8.4 million in non-economic damages awarded to plaintiff who became a paraplegic as a result of truck accident];

Mendoza v. Car Club, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 292-293, 300 [court upholds jury award of $1 million in non-economic damages against manufacturer of golf cart whose parking brake malfunctioned, causing plaintiff to suffer a broken neck]; Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1232-1233 [court confirms jury award of $2.99 million in non-economic damages to plaintiff who suffered permanent paralysis from the waist down and chronic radiating pain as a result of being shot in the back]; Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, [court upholds $6 million in non-economic damages to 3 year-old for injuries suffered in auto accident rendering her paraplegic and severely brain damaged, but with normal life expectancy];

Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 641-642, 653-655 [22-year old plaintiff was hit in the head and back with a 630-pound pipe, rendering him triplegic, with loss of all movement, sexual function, bladder and bowel control, and in constant pain, but with normal life expectancy; jury awards total economic and non-economic damages of $4,235,996, which the reviewing court upholds]; Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230, 237, 241, 244 [court upholds jury's award of $1.6 million in non-economic damages for head injury to young boy resulting in irreversible total paralysis and inability to speak].) (See Part 13 of 14.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Jury Awards Huge Non-Economic Damages To Accident Victim, Part 12 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Damages awards upheld in other cases involving similar injuries further illustrate the true departure from reality reflected by the award to Mr. Ward. (See Westphal v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1074-1077 [in upholding $150,000 in non-economic damages for slip-and-fall injury to legs and lower back of 55-year old woman, trial court remarked that the award was generous, where plaintiff suffered from ongoing, chronic, permanent pain from myofascial pain syndrome, which limited her mobility, caused her to be physically weak, and prevented her from working at her job]; Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1546-1547 [where plaintiff's arm was severed by fan, resulting in permanent loss of use of dominant hand after reattachment, chronic and severe pain, and inability to work, jury awarded non-economic damages of $2.5 million];

Damele v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 29, 34-38 [where plaintiff suffered "massive crush injury" to his left chest and shoulder from being trapped between a 65,000-pund truck and its trailer, causing massive blood loss, kidney failure, crushing of shoulder blade, nerve damage in arm, shearing-off of ligaments and muscles in arm, collapsed lung, repeated operations, permanent loss of use of arm, and permanent pain in shoulder, jury awarded $568,000 in non-economic damages, upheld by reviewing court]; Honea v. Matson Navigation Co. (N.D. Cal. 1972) 336 F.Supp. 793, 795, 797-799 [where slip-and-fall resulted in fractured left hip, death of a piece of bone due to lack of blood supply, and possible permanent confinement to a wheelchair, court awarded $75,000 in non-economic damages, including pain and suffering];

Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, supra, 56 Cal.2d at pp. 504, 506, 508-509 [bus accident caused fractures of left heel and shin bones, severed nerves and arteries to left foot and persistent open ulcer; Court conceded that non-pecuniary damages award of $134,000 was high but upheld it, stating that it was intended to compensate for pain and suffering, past and future, humiliation as a result of being disfigured and permanently crippled, and constant anxiety and fear that the leg will have to be amputated ];

Continue reading "Plaintiff In Sacramento Car Accident Case Rendered Impotent, Part 11 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

In Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car (C.D. Cal. 1995) 878 F.Supp.162 (reversed on other grounds in Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car (9th Cir. 1996) 97 F.3d 319), the court (following a court trial) determined plaintiff's damages arising from an auto accident. (Id. at pp. 163-164.) The court described the plaintiff's injuries as follows:

As a proximate result of the automobile accident John Randolph has suffered extensive orthopedic injuries. His left knee has a fractured tibial plateau and a tear of its anterior cruciate ligament; his pelvis was fractured resulting in the separation of his pubic rami; his pelvic region suffered a severe hematoma, resulting in a major rectus muscle injury; and the third and fourth metacarpal of his left hand were also fractured. In an effort to alleviate some of the pain John Randolph has been suffering, he must undergo two future surgeries. The first is to remove metal fragments from his left knee; the second is to replace the knee with an artificial knee implant. Further, it is quite possible that a second knee replacement operation will be needed if the first replacement does not work. (Id. at pp. 164-165.)

While the plaintiff in Randolph also suffered impotence as a result of his injuries, he was separately compensated for this by the court. (Id. at p. 166.) For his total past and future pain and suffering arising from the injuries described above, however, the court awarded him a total of $500,000. (Ibid.) The court explicitly based its determination on a survey of compensation for similar injuries in this and other jurisdictions. (Ibid.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Collision Victim Suffered Multiple Injuries, Part 10 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is true, of course, that every case is different, and that the value of an award in one case cannot be determined to be unreasonable on the basis of awards in other cases. However, the Supreme Court encourages trial courts, when reaching a determination concerning the reasonableness of the amount awarded by the jury, to consider damage awards in other cases. In discussing appellate review of a denial of motion for new trial based on excessive damages, the Supreme Court remarked in Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, supra, 56 Cal.2d 498, that, [w]hile the appellate court should consider the amounts awarded in prior cases for similar injuries, obviously, each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. (Id. at p. 508.)

More recently, in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 525, the court cited to the language in Seffert quoted above, and, based on it, conclude[d] that while it is appropriate to look at awards in similar cases, ultimately we must determine the propriety of the award based upon the facts of this case. (Id. at p. 550.) The court also found that a comparison of other cases may give us a point of reference . (Id. at p. 552.)

While it is true that the physical injuries and pain and suffering are different in all cases, they also share similarities. If they did not, then jurors would have no means by which to determine, in the first place, a reasonable amount of damages on the basis of their own experience as human beings.

Continue reading "Sacramento Auto Collision Victim Catastrophically Injured, Part 9 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The Jury's $5.4 Million Non-Economic Damages Award to Mr. Ward Is Excessive

The jury awarded $5,400,000 past and future non-economic damages to Mr. Ward. This amount suggests a "per year" approach by the jury, in that this amount is precisely equal to $150,000 per year, multiplied by a life expectancy from the time of the auto accident of 36 years.
In general, a jury violates the law when it uses a mathematical formula to arrive at a figure for damages. (Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 755-756, citing to Beagle v. Vasold, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 172.) The taking of a per-year or per-diem approach (i.e. where a dollar value is equated with pain and suffering over a unit of time) is an exception to this rule. (Beagle at pp. 179-180.) However, the use of this method can still lead to unreasonable results because, like any formula, it removes the determination of damages for pain and suffering from the realm of human experience. In his dissenting opinion in Beagle v. Vasold, supra, 65 Cal.2d 166, Justice Traynor strongly disapproved the use of per diem formulas, correctly observing that [n]one of these formulas appears unreasonable on its face, for there is no basis in human experience for testing their reasonableness. (Id. at pp. 183-184.) He concluded that [i]t is therefore unrealistic to seek an appropriate award for pain and suffering by the use of any so-called per diem formula. (Id.)

The Beagle majority addressed this concern by stating that, [W]hatever manner of calculation is proposed by counsel or employed by the jury, the verdict must meet the test of reasonableness. The per diem argument is only a suggestion as to one method of reaching the goal of reasonableness, not a substitute for it. If the jury's award does not meet this test, the trial court has the duty to reduce it.... (Beagle, supra, at pp. 179-180.)

Continue reading "Jury In Sacramento Car Accident Case Compensates Victim, Part 8 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The remaining amount of nearly $2,000,000 in the "life care plan" includes $837,000 for interventional pain therapies that Mr. Ward's own experts admit he may or may not need; $413,400 in household help and attendant care that he may or may not need; and $350,000 for lumbar and cervical spine surgeries based on the estimate of Dr. Sam Stein. The lesser amounts are for items which are even more speculative: $113,838 for supposedly anticipated medical evaluations and treatment in every conceivable field of medicine (including psychiatry, psychology, podiatry, dentistry, gastroenterology, urology, neurology, and internal medicine) which his experts and attorneys are once again being disingenuous in suggesting are tied to actual anticipated expenses; "other therapeutic interventions" in the projected amount of $90,855; additional diagnostic studies totaling $51,743; and a projected cost of $34,625 for emergency room visits.

These costs simply bear no rational relation to any expected, concrete future expense. And those few that do bear at least some rational relation (e.g., the surgeries by Dr. Stein and the interventional pain therapies consisting of the opium pump) are wildly inflated and unsupported as to their amounts.

Continue reading "Sacramento Jury Awards Millions To Accident Victim, Part 7 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The Jury's $3,185,711 Economic Damages Award to Mr. Ward Is Excessive

The jury awarded Mr. Ward economic damages consisting of future medical expenses in the amount of $3,185,711. This was based on the testimony of Dr. Frank Shin, the substance of which is reflected in Dr. Shin's "Life Care Plan," which states a purported total cost figure of $4,685,561. That means the jury awarded roughly 68% of the amount asked for by the plaintiffs.

Dr. Shin's "Life Care Plan" purports to state the precise cost of surgical procedures, individual medications, and medical treatments of every imaginable variety. (Dr. Shin's testimony was the only evidence presented at trial in support of the amounts stated on this document.
The life care plan states an estimated lifetime cost for medications totaling the unbelievable sum of $2,708,200. This sum was reached by multiplying Mr. Ward's supposed remaining life expectancy of 35 years (i.e. 420 months) by the monthly cost of a total of ten different medications, plus an additional $250,000 for botox injections. (This amount in particular is clearly overstated, since the total cost is listed as $5,000 per year, which, multiplied by a 35-year life expectancy comes only to $175,000, not $250,000.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Collision Victim Faces Long Recovery, Part 6 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

This Court Is the Only Forum in which Defendants Can Realistically Seek a New Trial Based on Excessive Damages Awarded by the Jury

As discussed above, while this Court is able to re-weigh evidence and determine whether damages are excessive based on a standard of reasonableness, the court of appeal is governed by a far different standard. That means if this Court denied this motion, the court of appeal could find the jury's award excessive only if it found the amount of the award was so high as to clearly have been the result of passion or prejudice on the part of the jury. (Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 507.)

The inability of the court of appeal to re-weigh evidence gives rise to differing standards of review between it and this Court. As Witkin explains, The appellate court does not weigh the evidence on damages, and will reverse a judgment on appeal only if no substantial evidence supports the award. But the trial judge is not bound by the rule of conflicting evidence and may grant a new trial if the award is against the weight of the credible evidence. (8 Witkin Cal. Procedure 4th (2002) sec. 37, p.542.) Necessarily, the court of appeal accords a great deal of weight to the finding of the trial court, when, after a re-weighing of the evidence, the trial court has concluded that the jury's verdict is reasonable. (See Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 614-615.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Victim May Face Second Civil Trial, Part 5 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

This legislative note alludes to the fact that, while the statute had on its face previously required a finding of "passion or prejudice," this requirement was contrary to valid Supreme Court case authorities, which had embraced the reasonableness standard based on a re-weighing of the evidence. Even though this Court need not find passion or prejudice influenced it, the award of damages here surely can be viewed that way. Given the parade of experts and the inflated numbers submitted to the jury, the outrageous amount here could be set aside for that reason, if it were necessary. (See Beagle v. Vasold (1966) 65 Cal.2d 166, 179-180 [ [W]hatever manner of calculation is proposed by counsel or employed by the jury, the verdict must meet the test of reasonableness....

If the jury's award does not meet this test, the trial court has the duty to reduce it ]; Sinz v. Owens (1949) 33 Cal.2d 749, 760 [the Court refers to a line of cases which "realistically conclude that an order for a new trial on the basis of excessive damages" necessarily is granted on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict for the amount awarded by the jury]; Van Ostrum v. State (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 1, 7 [court holds that, [t]he trial judge had the duty as well as the power to set aside the verdict when he found, pursuant to his own independent appraisal of the evidence, that it did not support an award of $4,000; it was not necessary for him to find passion or prejudice on the part of the jurors ].)

Continue reading "Defendant In Sacramento Car Collision Case Seeks New Trial, Part 4 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Initially, it is important to note that the statute establishes exactly what the court must find in order to determine that an award of damages is excessive. It must find, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the jury's verdict--the amount of damages--was unreasonable and therefore should have been different. Unlike a court of appeal sitting in review of an order denying a motion for new trial, the trial court need not find that the award is so large that it must necessarily have resulted from "passion or prejudice" on the part of the jury. The Supreme Court explained the reason for this distinction in Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1961) 56 Cal.2d 498:

The powers and duties of a trial judge in ruling on a motion for new trial and of an appellate court on an appeal from a judgment are very different when the question of an excessive award of damages arises. The trial judge sits as a thirteenth juror with the power to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. If he believes the damages awarded by the jury to be excessive and the question is presented it becomes his duty to reduce them. When the question is raised his denial of a motion for new trial is an indication that he approves the amount of the award. An appellate court has no such powers. It cannot weigh the evidence and pass on the credibility of the witnesses as a juror does. To hold an award excessive it must be so large as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jurors. (Id. at p. 507, quoting Holmes v. Southern California Edison Co. (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 43, 51.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Defendant Fights Huge Damage Award, Part 3 of 14" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case 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 auto accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
In this action, Mr. and Ms. Ward sought to recover for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident that occurred on October 15, 2004; liability was admitted. Following the completion of jury selection, the trial of this action commenced on June 7, 2007 and finished on June 26, 2007. The jury reached its verdict the following day, after about four hours of deliberation. It awarded a total of $10,105,711 consisting of: $3,185,711 to Mr. Ward in future medical expenses, $5,200,000 to Mr. Ward in past and future non-economic damages, and $1,620,000 to Ms. Ward for loss of consortium.

LEGAL DISCUSSION
Each of the jury's three basic awards of damages is unreasonably excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. The awards must be reduced by this Court under Code of Civil Procedure section 662.5(b). In the event that plaintiffs are unwilling to accept remittitur, this Court should order a new trial.

This Court Can and Must Order a New Trial Where the Damages Awarded by the Jury Are Clearly Excessive Based on a Reasonableness Standard

Continue reading "Sacramento Jury Awards Huge Damages For Auto Accident Victim, Part 2 of 14" »