Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

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

The assessment of damages is primarily the province of jury and secondarily the province of trial court when passing upon a motion for new trial. Gersick v. Shilling (1950) 218 P.2d 583, 97 Cal.App.2d 641; Music v. Southern Pac. Co. (1949) 204 P.2d 422, 91 Cal.App.2d 93. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Trial court may not grant new trial merely because verdict seems large or because it is larger than court sitting as jury would have given, but only when it appears that verdict was given under influence of passion or prejudice. Casaretto v. DeLucchi (1946) 174 P.2d 328, 76 Cal.App.2d 800; Kent v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp. (1939) 84 P.2d 1057, 29 Cal.App.2d 435; Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Abbot (1938) 76 P.2d 188, 24 Cal.App.2d 728; Bonner v. Los Angeles Examiner (1936) 62 P.2d 427, 17 Cal.App.2d 458; Hellman v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp. (1934) 27 P.2d 946, 135 Cal.App. 627, rehearing denied 28 P.2d 384, 135 Cal.App. 627.

In actions sounding in damages, where the law furnishes no rule of measurement, save the discretion of the jury upon the evidence before them, courts will not disturb a verdict upon the ground of excessive damages, unless it is so flagrantly improper as to evince passion, prejudice, partiality, corruption, or misapprehension. Wheaton v. North Beach & M.R. Co. (1869) 36 Cal. 590; Boyce v. California Stage Co. (1864) 25 Cal. 460; Aldrich v. Palmer (1864) 24 Cal. 513.

Continue reading "Jury Finds Sacramento Automobile Driver Liable For Damages To Motorcyclist, Part 6 of 6" »

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

Mr. Greene testified regarding the impact of these injuries upon his life. He was unable to return to his employment for several months and continues to suffer flare-ups which cause him to miss additional days of work. He testified that he suffered many embarrassing and humiliating events where he was physically unable to stand, sit or even walk and that, on many occasions, he was entirely dependent upon his family, sometimes his children, for physical and medical support. These events caused Mr. Greene significant anxiety as he was removed from his usual and customary role of the provider and guardian of his family.

Mr. Greene's testimony regarding several events where his children were required physically to care for him illustrated the full extent of the damages which were inflicted by the defendant's collision with his motorcycle.

The damages awarded by the jury were not excessive. Mr. Greene was the victim of a severe motor vehicle collision which was the result of the sole and unquestioned negligence of Ms. Hall. The trauma in this collision was so severe that Mr. Greene suffered a bone bruise and microfractures in the collision in addition to the damage to the overlaying tissue. These injuries were severe and, in several respects, permanent. Although, the defendants have argued that the injury was merely a soft tissue injury, the only medical testimony presented at the trial confirmed that the injuries were severe and permanent. The jury's verdict was not excessive in any respect. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Motorcyclist And Family Suffer After Car Accident, Part 5 of 6" »

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

These objective findings confirmed three facts: 1) that there was significant, permanent and painful damage to Mr. Greene's left testicle; 2) that this damage was the result of the trauma in the June 12, 2004 collision between the defendant's vehicle and Mr. Greene's motorcycle; and 3) that the injury was permanent. This testimony was uncontradicted.

The defendant complains Mr. Greene's injuries as "only soft tissue injuries" which do not warrant reasonable compensation. The complaints of the defendant are directly in conflict with the uncontroverted testimony of the only medical witnesses who were called to testify at the trial. Dr. Black concluded that Mr. Greene sustained multiple injuries, including a pelvic bone bruise and micro-fractures - these are not mere soft tissue injuries. These injuries are the result of damages to Mr. Greene's pelvic bone and are long-lasting.

Dr. Black testified that Mr. Greene will experience significant pain, swelling, stiffness and flare-ups from these injuries for three to four more years - until 2011 or 2012. Simple math shows that these injuries will have a duration of at least seven or eight years. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Dr. O’Callahan testified that Mr. Greene sustained a permanent, painful and extremely personal injury. Mr. Greene's left testicle was damaged and, as of 2008, had lost 50% of its mass. Mr. Greene testified that many of the personal and intimate details of his life now were painful. He was unable to have sexual relations with his wife, Kim Greene, for three months, and the sexual relationship with his wife continued to suffer since the car collision.

Continue reading "Car Versus Motorcyle Accident Leaves Sacramento Man Seriously Injured, Part 4 of 6" »

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

Dr. Black testified that Mr. Greene had experienced three-and-one-half years of significant pain, measured as a three to four on a scale of ten, and would more likely than not continue to experience this pain for another three to four years. While the defendant has argued that Dr. Black testified that the pain would typically resolve in three to five years, in the case of Mr. Greene Dr. Black opined that the pain would continue for another three to four years. Mr. Greene would experience daily pain with stiffness and flare-ups of extreme pain.

Dr. Black testified that Mr. Greene would lose eight to nine days of employment per year for the next three to four years. Dr. Black concluded that this was a "very serious injury." The testimony of Dr. Black was uncontradicted at trial. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Dr. Kieran O’Callahan, a board certified radiologist, testified regarding extent of injury to Mr. Greene's testicle and that injury was permanent. Dr. O’Callahan reviewed CT scans, performed in July of 2004 and in August of 2008, of Mr. Greene's testicles. The first test revealed that the Mr. Greene's left (injured) testicle was 30% smaller than the right testicle. Dr. O’Callahan testified that this discrepancy in size may have been either congenital or the result of recent trauma.

Continue reading "Sacramento Motorcyclist Suffers Permanent Injuries After Car Accident, Part 3 of 6" »

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

Plaintiff opposes the Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, Motion for Remittitur, as the evidence presented at the trial justified and supported the award of non-economic damages by the jury. This court should not disturb the unanimous verdict of the jury which clearly was the result of careful deliberation and not the result of either sympathy or prejudice. As the verdict of the jury was supported by the evidence presented at trail, the motion of the defendant should be denied. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Verdict of the Jury Was Supported by the Evidence.

Significant and substantial evidence was presented regarding the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Sean Greene. Virginia Hall testified that she turned her vehicle into the path of Mr. Greene's motorcycle, collided with the motorcycle, and caused Mr. Greene to be propelled from the motorcycle and onto the pavement. Mr. Greene testified that the collision with the defendant's car caused him to flip off of his motorcycle, rotate in the air, and land on his shoulders. After his shoulders struck the pavement, Mr. Greene testified that his hips and legs slammed into the pavement, inflicting serious and significant injury. This testimony was uncontradicted.

The collision was witnessed by Thomas Smith who was standing on the corner and facing the intersection when Ms. Hall turned into the path of Mr. Greene. He testified that there was a significant collision and that Mr. Greene appeared to have been injured. Mr. Smith testified that Mr. Greene was not able to stand immediately after being slamming against the pavement. Mr. Greene crawled on the ground for a few moments and then walked to the curb. Mr. Smith testified that Mr. Greene lay on the curb until emergency medical services arrived. Mr. Smith observed that Mr. Greene received medial attention immediately and was transported to University Hospital.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Injured After Automobile Collides With His Motorcycle, Part 2 of 6" »

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

Plaintiff, Sean Greene, submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, Remittitur:

INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on June 12, 2004. Plaintiff filed the action and requested a jury trial. In its answer, the defendant likewise requested a trial by jury.

The jury trial was conduced from February 2 to February 5, 2008, before the Honorable Anne Smith. On the morning of trial, the defendant admitted liability, but disputed causation and damages. During the trial, plaintiff submitted substantial evidence on the issues of causation and damages which was not significantly opposed by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict awarding Mr. Greene economic damages for the stipulated medical expenses of $15,221.75, future medical expenses of $720, past lost earnings of $28,686 and future lost earnings of $4,250. The jury awarded past non-economic damages in the amount of $190,000 and future non-economic damages of $80,000. The verdict of the jury was unanimous in all respects. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In spite of the facts that the defendant sought the trial by jury, the defendant now seeks a new trial, complaining that the non-economic damages awarded by the jury were excessive. The defendant has not cited any statutory or jurisprudential for her position that the damages are excessive, except for Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 359 wherein the court remitted on award of economic damages in an employment discrimination case. Nor has the defendant cited any evidence that the jury was unduly influenced by passion and sympathy toward the plaintiff.

Continue reading "Jury Finds Sacramento Woman Responsible For Car Accident Injuries, Part 1 of 6" »

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff testified at trial that he currently has pain in the left hip/pelvis area which he rates as a 3 on a scale of 0-10. He did experience more acute flare ups 1-2 times a year since the car accident he has been released back to work and has returned to Dr. Black, who has sent him to physical therapy and taken him off work for a week or two. Dr. Black testified that he expected plaintiff would have on-going pain for 3-5 years following the accident however, because it was already 3.5 years after the accident, he would expect that plaintiff will have the on-going pain for another 1.5 years. The jury's award for future medical expenses ($720) and future lost earnings ($4,250) were not substantial.

Based on the above evidence, the award of $190,000 for past pain and suffering and $80,000 for future pain and suffering was excessive and not based on the evidence presented at trial. A new trial should be granted.

In the Alternative, The Court Should Remit The Award.

As noted above. Code of Civil Procedure section 662.5(b) sets forth the procedure whereby the court may deny a motion for a new trial conditioned upon acceptance of a reduction of the award. In general, the trial judge has discretion to grant a new trial or the grounds of excessive damages, and it is the court's duty to grant such a new trial or provide for a reduction of a verdict if, under the circumstances, it believes the jury's award is excessive. (Bazzoli v. Nance's Sanitarium, inc. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 232.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Two-Vehicle Car Accident Results In Injuries To Sacramento Motorcyclist, Part 6 of 6" »

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL DISCUSSION

THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO SET ASIDE AN EXCESSIVE VERDICT UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

A New Trial Should Be Granted Because The Award for Past and Future Pain and Suffering by the Jury Was Unsupported by the Evidence. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Court has authority and the power in this case to reweigh the evidence independently from that of the jury to determine whether the past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering award was excessive.

Defendant maintains that the amounts award by the jury for past and future noneconomic damages is simply unsupported by the evidence. To that end, the evidence at trial demonstrated that plaintiff suffered only soft tissue injuries. Plaintiff testified at trial that plaintiff's CT scans and x-rays taken at the hospital following the car accident were all negative.

None of plaintiff's doctors testified at trial that plaintiff required surgery or that he would require surgery in the future. Plaintiff's past medical bills were only $15,221 and there was no evidence presented at trial to suggest that plaintiff suffered enduring, severe injuries or pain as a result of the accident.

Continue reading "Motorcyclist From Sacramento Hit By Woman In Car Collision, Part 5 of 6" »

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Code of Civil Procedure §662.5(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:

In any civil action where after trial by jury an order granting a new trial limited to the issue of damages would be proper, the trial court may in its discretion:

b) If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive damages, make its order granting the new trial subject to the condition that the motion for a new trial is denied if the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered consents to a reduction of so much thereof as the court in its independent judgment determines from the evidence to be fair and reasonable. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In deciding a motion for new trial on excessive damages, the court has the power (and the responsibility) to reweigh the evidence:

A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of ... excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. [CCP § 657]

In Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 CA4th 359, the jury awarded one plaintiff $300,000 in economic damages and the second plaintiff $250,000 in an employment discrimination case.

Continue reading "Car Accident Leaves Sacramento Man Seriously Injured, Part 4 of 6" »

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

THE VERDICT

The matter was submitted to the jury on February 5, 2008. On or about February 5, 2008, the jury rendered the following Special Verdict:

Past Medical Expenses: $15,221.75

Past Lost Earnings: $28,686.00

Future Medical Expenses: $720.00

Future Lost Earnings: $4,250.00

Past Pain and Suffering: $190,000.00

Future Pain and Suffering: $80,000.00

Total: $318,877.75

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

In light of the evidence that plaintiff suffered only soft tissue injuries from the accident and had only $15,221.75 in past medical expenses defendant maintains that the jury award for past pain and suffering in the amount of $190,000 as well as the award for future pain and suffering in the amount of $80,000 was extremely excessive, and unsupported by the evidence. A new trial is warranted under the circumstances.

AUTHORITY

Code of Civil Procedure §657 outlines the basis for granting a new trial. In pertinent part, it provides:
The verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party:

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Suffers Injuries After Car Hits His Motorcycle, Part 3 of 6" »

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff next treated at Occupational Medical Center on July 14, 2004, with complaints of pain in the left thigh, left groin, pelvis, and left lower abdomen. He was diagnosed with a left thigh strain, left groin strain, abdominal wall strain, testicular contusion, left thigh contusion, chest wall contusion, and closed head injury. He was referred to physical therapy and placed on temporary disability. Plaintiff was evaluated again on July 19, 2004, at which time his complaints remained the same and he was to continue with physical therapy.

Plaintiff then waited more than two months after the car accident to seek further medical treatment, when he presented to orthopedic surgeon Dr. James Black on October 12, 2004, with complaints of pain in the lumbar spine, right buttock which radiated to the right foot, as well as pain in the left thigh and groin. He was referred to physical therapy. By a November 28, 2004 visit, it is noted that the physical therapy had improved his symptoms, and he was released to return to his job as an emergency responder for vehicles that are disabled on toll bridges, on or about November 29, 2004. Thereafter, plaintiff has only seen Dr. Black sporadically and returned to work at a physical job, with the exception of occasional flare ups where Dr. Black has taken him off work for short periods of time.

At the time of trial, plaintiff presented to the jury $15,221.75 in medical specials. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff testified at trial that he currently has pain in the left hip/pelvis area which he rates as a 3 on a scale of 0-10. He did experience more acute flare ups 1-2 times a year since he has been released back to work and has returned to Dr. Black, who has sent him to physical therapy and taken him off work for a week or two.

Continue reading "Jury Finds For Sacramento Man After Auto Accident Trial, Part 2 of 6" »

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Defendant Virginia Hall submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities is support of her Motion for New Trial or, in the alternative, remittitur:

INTRODUCTION

A new trial is warranted due to the imposition of excessive damages that were unsupported by the evidence. In the interests of justice, Ms. Hall's motion for new trial or, in the alternative, a reduction in damages must be granted.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an automobile versus motorcycle accident which occurred at 8:35 p.m. at the intersection of College Street and Ash Boulevard in Sacramento, California on June 12, 2004. Plaintiff was operation the intersection with Ash. As plaintiff entered the intersection, he collided with the 2002 Jaguar S-Type driven by defendant, Virginia Hall, who was turning left from southbound College Street onto eastbound Ash.

The matter proceeded to trial on February 2, 2008. Plaintiff testified at trial that following the accident with Ms. Hall, he stood up and walked over to the curb. When he got to the curb, he sat down and felt pain in his back, as well as pain and weakness in his left leg. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff was taken to University Hospital following the incident, with complaints of pain in his lower left extremity. Plaintiff did not sustain any broken bones from the accident.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Fights Car Accident Jury Trial Verdict, Part 1 of 6" »