Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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.)

THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST LAW

The ground for new trial that the verdict is against law, is separate and distinct from other grounds listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 657, and does not involve the weighing of the evidence. Rather, the jury's verdict is against law if it is unsupported by the evidence. (See Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 892.)

In the case of Kruse v. Bank of America. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, at 51 and 52, the court stated that the test for substantial evidence is:

Substantial evidence, however, is not synonymous with any evidence. To constitute sufficient substantiality to support the verdict, the evidence must be "reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value." It must actually be "substantial" proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Here, there is no reasonable or credible evidence to deny that this plaintiff was in fact injured as a result of this accident and that such injuries required medical care and treatment all to the economic and non-economic damage of the plaintiff.

Continue reading "New Trial Demanded By Sacramento Woman Injured In Auto Accident, Part 7 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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.)

THERE WAS IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE COURT'S ALLOWING EVIDENCE

Over the objection of counsel for the plaintiff, defendant's counsel engaged in what can be described as nothing less than misconduct.

In the case of Smith v. Covell. (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 947 at 959 the court says that questions which calls for patent hearsay evidence cannot be brought in the back door on cross-examination of a party or for any other reason. That court rejected at page 960 claims by counsel that such questions were for the purpose of impeachment holding that such claims do not barr the evidence from being presented based on the hearsay rule. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In this case, over objection of counsel, defendant's attorney questioned Dr. Lee and Dr. Gold about medical records which were not admissible under Evidence Code section 1271 or 1272. Objections were made at the time counsel for the defendant attempted to question the doctors concerning medical records which they did not prepare and which did not contain any information concerning the claims of the plaintiff. All of this was for the purpose of trying to demonstrate that the plaintiff did not complain of neck injuries over an extended period of time.

Such records include Exhibit 181 for identification which was written on March 17, 2005, by unknown persons. Counsel for the defendant asked questions concerning this document over objections that it lacked foundation, and was nothing more than hearsay to elicit responses that this document does not show any claim for a neck injury.

Continue reading "Plaintiff Claims Improper Attorney Conduct In Sacramento Car Accident Trial, Part 6 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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.)

The testimony of plaintiff, Alice Hall, was that not only did this accident cause her injury which led to her admission to the emergency room on the night of this accident, but she also suffered economic damages in that she was off work for three (3) days following this accident. According to her testimony she was not able to work on March 6th, March 7th and March 9th. Based on her income level of slightly more than Fifty-Six Dollars ($56.00) per hour her economic damage immediately following this accident was One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($1,233.00). No evidence was submitted by the defendant to refute that economic loss based on her inability to work for a period of time following this accident.

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

While the defendant in this action provided considerable evidence concerning Ms. Hall's neck injury, no evidence was ever submitted which refuted her low back injury. Thus, if this jury had followed the instructions given by this court under CACI 3900, 3901, 3903, 3903a, 3903c, and 3903d the jury would have had to have found that the negligence of Charles White, which was admitted, was a substantial factor in causing harm, as defined by the court to this jury. Once Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative, then the jury had an obligation to determine the nature and extent of the economic and non-economic damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. However, in this case, because the jury did not follow the law as given to it by the court those questions were not answered.

Continue reading "Sacramento Jury Trial Results In Insufficient Damages Award For Car Accident, Part 5 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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.)

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT

The evidence in this case is overwhelming that the plaintiff, Alice Hall, did in fact suffer an injury as a result of this accident.

In that regard, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of the traffic collision report which was reviewed and referred to by Mr. Berg and Dr. Wagner. On page 3 of 5 the report indicates that there is a complaint of pain to the low back of Ms. Hall as a result of this accident.

Additionally, marked as Exhibit 179 for identification in the trial was the emergency room record concerning Ms. Hall's admission to Kaiser. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff, Alice Hall, testified that following this accident she was transported by her husband to the urgent care facility of Kaiser. Upon admission to the urgent care it was determined that she should be transferred immediately, according to her testimony, to the emergency room.

Exhibit 179 for identification, which is marked as Exhibit B and attached hereto clearly indicates that at the time of her admission on the date of this accident, March 5, 2005, Ms. Hall did complain of low back pain. In fact, Exhibit 179 shows that not only radiology was performed on her low back, but she was administered morphine as a result of the pain which she incurred.

Continue reading "Jury Awards Sacramento Driver Damages After Auto Accident, Part 4 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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.)

MORE RELIEF AVAILABLE

In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier of fact and not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury. The court may grant a new trial even though there is sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict on appeal, so long as the court determines that the weight of the evidence is against the verdict. (Candido v. Huitt. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 918, 923.)

The court has the power to consider the credibility of witnesses to draw reasonable inferences contrary to those drawn by the jury. (Valdez v. J.D. Diffenbaugh Co., (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 491, 512.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

It is not only the right, but the duty of the trial judge to grant a new trial when he or she believes the weight of the evidence to be contrary to the findings of the jury. (Tice v. Kaiser Co., (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 44, 46.)

A new trial should be granted when the verdict is against law. These grounds apply one when the evidence is without substantial conflict in any material point and insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. (McCowan v. Spencer (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 216, 229.)

A verdict is against law, if the evidence is legally insufficient to support the verdict. (McCowan. supra.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Sues For Damages After Two-Car Collision, Part 3 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

COURT’S AUTHORITY TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL

A new trial is an examination of the issues of fact in the same court after trial and decision by the jury, court or referee. (Code of Civil Procedure section 656.)

A motion for new trial is proper only to secure examination of the issues of fact. (Rinaldo v. Superior Court. (1936) 15 Cal.2d 585.)

The test of propriety from the order granting a new trial is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, but whether a contrary verdict would have been supported by substantial evidence. (Biggins v. Hanson. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 16.)

A motion for new trial may be entertained where issues of law or issues of law and fact, are determined as well as where issues of fact are decided. (Carney v. Simmonds. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The trial judge is accorded wide discretion and ruling on motions for new trial and exercise of this discretion is given great difference on appeal. (Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts. Inc., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152.)

RELIEF AVAILABLE

The verdict may be vacated and other decisions may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part and a new and further trial granted if 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: (1) Irregularities in the proceeding of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) Inadequate damages;

Continue reading "Muilti-Car Sacramento Accident Leaves Driver Injured, Part 2 of 9" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage 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 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 Alice Hall will move the court to grant her motion for new trial on the issue of damages on the grounds set forth within her notice of intention to move for new trial, filed separately.

INTRODUCTION

The jury in this matter returned a verdict on special questions submitted to them on November 7, 2008.

Prior to the matter going to the jury the defendant Charles White by and through his attorney of record, Jeffrey Smith, had admitted liability. Therefore, the only special questions presented to the jury dealt with the issues of damages. In this verdict the jury found that defendant Charles White's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff Alice Hall. None of the other special questions were responded to.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict within the statutory period after the verdict was entered. No written notice of the entry of the judgment has ever been given to this party. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the notice for new trial, plaintiff alleged the following grounds:

1. Irregularity in proceedings of the court and jury;
2. Misconduct of the jury;
3. Inadequate damages;
4. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the verdict is against law;
5. Error of law occurring at trial.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Injuries In Car Accident, Part 1 of 9" »

(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.)

Further, in Sesler v. Ghumman, 219 Cal. App.3d 218, 224 (1990), the court found that a driver making a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic must yield to oncoming traffic in each lane of travel. The court in Sesler stated that while a motorist may waive his or her own right-of-way, neither the law nor common sense dictates that the waiver applies to any other motorist. Id. In Sesler, the plaintiff was traveling south when he stopped his motorcycle in a left turn pocket and waited for traffic to clear in the three oncoming lanes; the cars in oncoming lanes 1 and 2 stopped and motioned for the plaintiff to proceed with his left hand turn in front of them. Id. Seeing no hazard in lane 3 (the lane closest to the curb), the plaintiff commenced his turn; but the defendant, who had been traveling north in lane 1, had moved to lane 3 to avoid the cars he saw stopped in front of him and he collided with the plaintiff in the intersection. Id.

Therefore, it is contrary to the law for defendant White to argue in this matter that she had no duty to anticipate that other drivers would not yield the right of way. See Id. at 222. A party has a right to jury instmctions on his or her theory of the case, if they are reasonable and supported by the pleadings and the evidence, or any inference which may properly be drawn from the evidence. See Sesler, 219 Cal. App.3d at 223. In the present action, defendant's theory was not supported by any evidence. As a result, it was improper for defendant to argue that Plaintiff caused or contributed to this accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

DEFENDANT'S IMPROPER ARGUMENTS SOUGHT TO IMPROPERLY MOTIVATE THE JURY THROUGH PASSION AND PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Hall asserted to the Court that there was a substantial probability that, if defendant was permitted to make improper arguments concerning claims of Plaintiff's contribution to the accident, it would inflame the jury.

Continue reading "Damages At Issue In Sacramento Auto Accident Case, Part 5 of 5" »

(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's claims against defendant are based upon defendant's negligence relating to defendant's clear violation of California Vehicle Code §21801 (a) (unsafe left turn). In Bewley, the court expressly stated that a driver is under a duty, both by statute and common law, to operate his vehicle without negligence so as to abstain from injuring any other person or property. Id. (Citing Civil Code §1708).

CACI jury instruction 700 expressly instructs a jury that:

A person must use reasonable care in driving a vehicle. Drivers must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, and other vehicles. They must control the speed and movement of their vehicles. The failure to use reasonable care in driving a vehicle is negligence. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant clearly violated Vehicle Code §21801 (a) by making an unsafe left turn in front of Plaintiff. See Vehicle Code §21801(a); Hickson v. Beitel, 103 Cal.App.2d 391, 393-394 (1951). Section 21801 (a) expressly states that:

"[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety."

Continue reading "New Trial Sought By Plaintiff In Car Accident Case, Part 4 of 5" »

(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.)

In the present case, it is clear that this Court is entitled to, and actual obligated to, make a separate determination as to whether or not the verdict, which included a finding of seventy-five percent fault on the part of Plaintiff, was appropriate. Further, Plaintiff submitted evidence of medical bills of in excess of $18,970.54. Evidence was also presented concerning the need for future medical care at a cost of in excess of $23,400.00. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that the evidence establishes that the verdict is improper, and that there was inadequate evidence presented by defendant at trial to support such a verdict. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO ARGUE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF AT TRIAL

In advance of trial, Plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude defendant from arguing at trial that Plaintiff caused or contributed to the accident. Defendant's contention that Plaintiff has any fault in this accident is without merit. At the time of the accident Plaintiff was lawfully proceeding eastbound on West Ave. with the flow of traffic. He had the right of way at all times, and he had the legal right to expect that defendant would not make an illegal left turn directly in front of Plaintiff's vehicle. Based upon the exact details of the accident, defendant had no evidence to support a bare claim that Plaintiff somehow contributed to the accident. And defendant presented no such evidence at trial. (See Part 4 of 5.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Wins Car Accident Case, Part 3 of 5" »

(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.)

ARGUMENT

THE TRIAL COURT IS ENTITLED TO AND MUST INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE EVIDENCE, SO AS TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL WHEN A JURY VERDICT IS AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

In a jury trial, each party has two hearings, one before the jury and the other before the court as "a 13th juror." Nordent v. Hartman, 111 Cal.App.2d 791, 798 (1952). It is not only the right, but also the duty of the trial judge to grant a new trial when he or she believes the weight of the evidence to be contrary to the finding of the jury. Rice v. Kaiser Co.,102 Cal.App.2d 44, 45 (1951)

As part of its review of the verdict, a trial court is not bound by the conclusions of the jury:
In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier of fact and is not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury. The court may grant a new trial even though there may be sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict on appeal, so long as the court determines the weight of the evidence against the verdict. Candido v. Huitt, 151 Cal.App.3d 918 (1984).

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

The authority of a trial court to grant a new trial is established and circumscribed by statute, which provides seven legal grounds for such a motion. See Code of Civil Procedure §657(1)-(7). These grounds are: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings; (2) Misconduct of the jury; (3) Accident or surprise; (4) Newly discovered evidence; (5) Excessive or inadequate damages; (6) Insufficiency of the evidence; and (7) Error in law. See Id.

Continue reading "Two-Car Collision In Sacramento Leaves Man In Serious Condition, Part 2 of 5" »

(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 Peter Hall’s Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

On June XX, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Sacramento Superior Court, Plaintiff Peter Hall will move this Court for an order for a new trial of this matter.

Plaintiff's Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the evidence and case law, the pleadings, documents, records, and files in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence and argument which may be presented at the hearing on this motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

On or about February XX, 2008, Plaintiff Peter Hall, age 25, was driving his 2001 Range Rover eastbound on West Blvd. in Sacramento, California. Suddenly, defendant Genvieve White made an unsafe left turn in her 2004 BMW X5 SUV from westbound West towards University Dr., crossing three lanes of traffic, directly in front of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was unable to avoid defendant's vehicle, resulting in a severe collision between the vehicles.

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

On or about March XX, 2010, trial of this matter commenced in Department "X" of the Sacramento Superior Court. During the trial plaintiff presented substantial evidence and expert opinions supporting his position that he had sustained general and special damages totaling in excess of $129,000.00.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man In Catastrophic Automobile Accident, Part 1 of 5" »