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 car accident case and its proceedings.)

This Court May Exclude Evidence That Will Waste Time And Confuse Jurors

Evidence Code §352 states that the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially out weighed 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. (Emphasis added.) See People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 514; Cubic Corp. v. Marty (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 438, 455.

Any testimony regarding the automobile collision involving plaintiff that occurred in 1998 will likely involve an undue consumption of time. There is no record that plaintiff was in an accident in 1998 and no record of any injury sustained as a result of the alleged accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The only record of a 1998 accident involving plaintiff is his statement to William Hill, P.A., one of the many individuals who have treated plaintiff since the crash with defendant. Thus, plaintiff anticipates that defendant will attempt to introduce the testimony of William Hill that plaintiff told Hill plaintiff was in a 1998 car accident. This testimony will add nothing new to the evidence presented because it has no bearing on liability, causation, or damages. Allowing testimony regarding this event will prolong the trial without good reason or justification.

Further, any mention of this collateral matter will create a substantial danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Should this evidence be admitted, the jury will likely speculate that plaintiff's injuries were caused by a 10-year-old accident.

Continue reading "Damages Sought By Sacramento Driver After Car Accident, Part 3 of 3" »

(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.)

Evidence Of The 1998 Automobile Collision Is Irrelevant And Therefore Must Be Excluded

Evidence Code §350 states that no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. "Relevant" evidence is defined by Evidence Code §210 as "having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523 (only relevant evidence is admissible).

Any evidence of the 1998 automobile collision involving plaintiff has no potential to prove or disprove a disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action. Plaintiff was not mentioned in the Traffic Collision Report and he received no medical treatment as a result of the collision. (Morris Depo., 226: 20-24.) There is no evidence that plaintiff suffered from any injury related to a 1998 accident. Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff suffered from any pre-existing medical condition from 1998 to 2008. (Morris Depo., 233: 9-15.) Thus, any inquiry regarding the 1998 collision is not relevant. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Other evidence that may be excluded under the authority of Evidence Code §350 is that which is speculative. See William Dal Porto & Sons, Inc. v. Agricultural Relations Board (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1195, 11-12. The court must exclude evidence if the trier of fact must draw speculative or conjectural inferences from it. See People v. Parrison (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 529.

Continue reading "Sacramento Auto Accident Victim Fights To Exclude Evidence Of Prior Collision, Part 2 of 3" »

(Please also 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.)

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude References to A 1998 Automobile Accident

Plaintiff, Owen Black, by and through his attorney of record to request an order prohibiting any mention of an automobile crash involving plaintiff that occurred in 1998 in the State of Washington. This motion is based on the grounds that the evidence is irrelevant, immaterial, confusing, prejudicial, and is expressly prohibited by the laws of this state.

Preliminary Statement

This case involves a civil action arising from an automobile accident that occurred on July 10, 2008, when the defendant crashed her vehicle into the rear of the Toyota Land Cruiser plaintiff was driving. As a result of the crash, plaintiff sustained severe injuries. The defense will attempt to introduce evidence that plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in 1998. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In 1998, plaintiff was a passenger sitting in the back seat of an automobile when it was hit in the side by another motorist. Plaintiff was not injured, did not receive any medical treatment as a result of the alleged incident, and worked in the construction industry for more than a decade following the alleged incident. Moreover, there is no record or report that plaintiff was in any accident in 1998. There are no medical records indicating he was in an accident in 1998. (See Part 2 of 3.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Injured In Serious Car Accident, Part 1 of 3" »

(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.)

Plaintiff here can only allege that defendant ran a red light and entered an intersection by driving into a lane that was not intended for through traffic. (Incidentally, these are factually disputed.) If true, such acts were negligent. But even grossly negligent or reckless acts do not suffice for punitive damages. Dawes, supra. Tacking on the words "willful and conscious disregard" does not create an action for punitive damages. Broussear v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal App 3d 864, 872.

Indeed, if plaintiff's theory on punitive damages were allowed, then virtually every traffic collision case would result in punitive damages: in virtually every such case will be found a defendant who ran a red light, or entered a wrong lane, or drove excessively fast, or otherwise exhibited behavior that was less than admirable - but hardly the stuff of punitive damages. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

At the most, plaintiff's allegations of defendant's running a red light and entering an undesignated lane might be grossly negligent. But, as Dawes teaches, that is not enough. Indeed, Dawes was decided before the legislature amended the statute to add despicable conduct to the requirements for stating a cause of action for punitive damages. None of these allegations approach the Dawes threshold, let alone that of the revised statute.

Continue reading "Injured Sacramento Driver Seeks Punitive Damages For Car Accident, Part 3 of 3" »

(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.)

DISCUSSION

A motion to strike is of course appropriate to strike any "improper matter in a pleading, or any part of a pleading" not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state. CCP § 436.

One might begin the discussion of punitive damages with the universally recognized principle that [t]he law does not favor punitive damages and they should be granted with the greatest caution. Dyna-Med Inc v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission (1987) 43 Cal 3d 1379, 1392. This of course makes excellent sense, as the defendant will be subject to personal liability virtually equal to one found guilty of criminal conduct.

The burden of proof a plaintiff must meet is higher than that for any other civil issue: the plaintiff must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice ... Civil Code § 3294 (a). An one appellate court noted, "Clear and convincing evidence" requires a finding of high probability ... requiring that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt." In re Angela P (1981) 28 Cal 3d 908, 919. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The elements plaintiff must prove are no less stringent. The plaintiff must prove "oppression, fraud or malice." CC § 3294 (a). Thus, "the cases have uniformly recognized that proof of negligence, even gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages." Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal App 3d 82, 90.

Continue reading "Reckless Sacramento Driver Catastrophically Injures Sacramento Man, Part 2 of 3" »

(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.)

Defendant's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages: Points & Authorities
Procedural Matters

This motion is filed pursuant to the Court's tentative ruling, which became the final ruling, and in which the Court granted plaintiffs motion to amend for punitive damages, but also granted leave for the defense to file and serve a motion to strike. Thus, the Court apparently granted to motion to file based on the jurisprudence governing filing amended complaints, and is permitting this forum of the motion to strike to address whether the punitive damages allegations should be allowed to stand.

FACTS

This case is based upon a two vehicle accident which occurred on November 18, 2008. Plaintiff Eli White was on a motorcycle and collided with defendant Lee’s vehicle. There is a dispute as to who had the green light. There are no allegations of driving while under the influence; plaintiff simply lists various aspects of an ordinary vehicle accident in the First Amended Complaint and then appends conclusory language that the actions entitle plaintiff to "exemplary and punitive damages." For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The only facts upon which counsel attempts to bring this ordinary auto negligence case under punitive damages are: (1) defendant was "running a red light," defendant "traveled in an undesignated lane at a high rate of speed," and (3) "proceeded into a busy intersection." Id.

Continue reading "Sacramento Driver Runs Red Light Causing Serious Car Accident, Part 1 of 3" »

(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.)

Hill's Request Should Be In the Form of a Demurrer. Motion to Strike, or Judgment on the Pleadings. Not a Motion for Summary Adjudication.

Defendant also argues that plaintiffs' request for punitive damages should be stricken because plaintiffs' complaint only contained legal conclusions and generalizations. Defendant's characterization is inaccurate as the portion of the complaint seeking punitive damages is full of specific factual allegations. Furthermore, if the basis for this motion is the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' complaint, then defendant should have challenged it instead with a demurrer, motion to strike, or motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Defendant cites Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 1 for the proposition that plaintiffs' request for punitive damages should be stricken because the complaint contained only legal conclusions. In Cohen, which was an appeal on a motion for judgment on the pleadings (rather than a motion for summary adjudication), the complaint sought punitive damages by stating abstract legal conclusions such as malice, wanton, and willful. (Id. at 8.) No specific factual allegations were made to support the punitive damages claim. (Id.) Plaintiffs' complaint in the subject action is replete with specific facts.

Plaintiffs alleged that in an act of road rage, Hill swerved his car toward Sean Black's SUV; that Hill's car traveled erratically; and that it slammed into Sean's SUV, causing it to roll over three times. The Lynchs' complaint does not contain generalizations and legal conclusions. It is supported with numerous and specific factual allegations. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A motion for summary adjudication is not the proper procedure for defendant to attack plaintiffs' complaint.

Continue reading "Sacramento Road Rage Case Leads To Serious Car Accident, 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 case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs Do Not Need to Show that Defendant Intended to Injure Sean Black In Order to Recover Punitive Damages

By describing the subject crash as "merely" accidental, Hill argues that Sean cannot recover punitive damages because he does not have evidence that Hill intended to injure Sean. First, the crash was not just a simple accident. Hill caused the crash by acting recklessly in a number of ways just before the crash. Defendant's conduct made the crash all but inevitable. But more importantly, there is no bar to recovering punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 if plaintiffs cannot prove that defendant intended to harm plaintiff.

A conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others means a conscious disregard of the probability that the actor's conduct will result in injury to others. (Taylor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895.) Here, Hill's conduct immediately before the crash significantly increased the chances of injury to others, especially to Sean. In order to obtain punitive damages, plaintiff need not prove that defendant intended to cause injury to the plaintiff. (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 808.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Rather, plaintiff needs to only show that defendant acted in conscious disregard for other people's safety. (West v. Johnson & Johnson Prods., Inc. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 831, 867 (inadequate product testing); Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867 (landlord's knowledge for years that conditions on premises created danger of criminal attacks); Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279 (allowing grease to build up near gas station pumps).)

Continue reading "Sacramento Highway Car Accident Due To Reckless Driver, 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 car accident case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

A Triable Issue of Material Fact Exists as to Whether Defendant Hill Acted with Malice, Oppression, and Willful and Conscious Disregard of the Safety of Sean Black.

Summary adjudication to dispose of a plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is granted only if the moving party is able to prove that there is no merit to the punitive damages claim. (Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1).) A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in a tort claim if there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civil Code § 3294(a).) Malice is defined as despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ.C. § 3294(c)(1).) Oppression is similarly defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (Civ.C. § 3294(c)(2).)

Defendant Hill claims that plaintiffs cannot prove that Hill's conduct before the violent collision and rollover merits the imposition of punitive damages. Defendant's motion ignores overwhelming evidence of his own despicable conduct, which directly led to the crash and Sean's serious injuries. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the moments before the subject collision, Hill intentionally acted in a number of ways that exponentially raised the risk of a high speed crash and significant harm to Sean Hill. They include:
*repeatedly cutting off Sean;
*driving erratically;
*shaking his fist while leaning across his front passenger seat;
*doing all of the above while holding a cigarette;
*doing all of the above while traveling at 65 to 70 miles per hour; and
*swerving towards Sean's vehicle.

Continue reading "Malicious Behavior By Sacramento Driver Results In Major Injury Accident, Part 4 of 6" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the early stages of civil litigation. 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.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment and summary adjudication are to be granted only with great caution. (Dolquist v. City of Bellflower (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 261, 266.) In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court's sole function is to determine from the submitted evidence whether there is a triable issue as to any material fact. (C.C.P. §437c(c); Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 926.) The court should strictly construe the moving party's evidence and liberally construe the evidence presented by the motion's opponent. (Zavala at 926; Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1620, 1627.)

Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Id., citing Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) If there is a triable issue, it is error for the trial court to grant summary judgment. (Doiichin v. Guerroero (1995) Cal.App.4th 1832, 1837.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action or claim for damages has no merit only if he has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action or claim for damages cannot be established. (C.C.P. § 437c(p)(2).)

Continue reading "Angry Sacramento Freeway Motorist Confrontation Leads To Auto Collision, 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 car accident case and its proceedings.)

FACTUAL SUMMARY

William Hill has difficulty controlling his anger. (See, Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) Many of his friends have told Sean that he has anger control issues. About a year before the subject crash, Hill was involved in a fistfight at a bar and gave the other combatant a bloody nose.

On September 21, 2008, William Hill and Sean Black were both traveling eastbound on Interstate 80. Sean saw Hill's car in the rear view mirror, accelerating towards him and changing lanes. Hill, without using his turn signal or slowing down, cut Sean off, squeezing his car between a truck and Sean's SUV. Sean immediately braked hard to give Hill more room. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Hill and Sean continued traveling eastbound on Interstate 80. At one point, when they were driving next to each other, Hill flipped Sean off. Moreover, Hill repeatedly cut off Sean.

Just before the collision, Hill leaned across his front passenger seat and shook his fist at Sean. At the same time, Hill was holding a cigarette and driving at 65 to 70 miles-per-hour. He made a sudden, jerking movement and his car swerved towards Sean's SUV.

Continue reading "Sacramento Liquor Company Liable For Employee's Car Accident, 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 car accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication

INTRODUCTION

Sean Black is suing defendants William Hill ("Hill") and Liquor Products, Inc. ("L-P") for the serious neck and back injuries he suffered when the car driven by William Hill struck Sean Black's SUV at highway speeds, causing Sean's SUV to violently roll over three times, crushing its roof in the process. Sean's wife Carrie Black has a loss of consortium claim. William Hill was employed by L-P and was within the course and scope of employment when the collision took place.

This motion should be denied on both substantive and procedural grounds. Substantively, defendant Hill brings this motion on the grounds that there is no evidence to support plaintiffs' request for punitive damages. The motion should be denied because ample evidence exists to show that defendant Hill acted with malice, oppression, and a willful and conscious disregard of the safety of Sean Black. Just before the subject collision, defendant Hill consciously and recklessly cut off Sean repeatedly, drove erratically, swerved towards Sean, and shook his fist at Sean, all while holding a cigarette and traveling at 65 to 70 miles-per-hour.

Defendant Hill's motion must also be denied on substantive grounds because he incorrectly argues that punitive damages are allowable only if the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff. Neither statutory nor case law supports this baseless requirement. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento SUV Driver Injured In Car Accident, Part 1 of 6" »