Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

SIMILAR ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE SHARED EXPERTS

Dr. Brown and Mr. West are not the same party. They are not married, or even related. They are not represented by the same attorney. One is the purchaser of the tire, the other is not One has privity of contract with Valley Chevrolet and The Auto Center, the other (West) does not. The defendants have cross complained against Dr. Brown for the damages claimed by Mr. West.

Dr. Brown has not hired Mr. West's experts (save, Mr. Goldberg), and has no contract or agreement with those experts. Either plaintiff could settle with one or more of the defendants leaving the other plaintiff to go it alone.

Nevertheless, XYZ argues that Dr. Brown should be forced to withdraw Drs Bakstrom and Hall, and rely upon Mr. West's experts instead. There is no compelling reason to do so. Dr. Brown has identified a perfectly reasonable number of experts, and the expected testimony of those experts is expected to overlap barely, if at all.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Fights Tire Company After Tires Cause Car Accident, Part 5 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

None of the expert witnesses listed above has been deposed by the defendant, despite the fact that this same defendant sought a continuance of the December 2009 trial in order to have more time to conduct expert discovery. XYZ contends, essentially, that either Dr Bakstrom or Dr. Hall must go, to save time and money, without actually having heard a word from either expert. Plaintiff Brown contends that both Dr. Bakstrom and Dr. Hall are essential to her case against the formidable, well financed, and experienced corporate defendant (as well a the other two defendants - Valley Chevrolet and The Auto Center).

It is worth remembering that XYZ designed, manufactured, distributed, and marketed the subject tire. Much of the discovery and investigation associated with its defense was incidental to its primary business - making, marketing, and selling tires. Dr. Brown, a retired dentist, has had to start from scratch, using experts who have not had the benefit of unlimited access to XYZ 's wealth of resources.

Dr. Brown needs both Dr. Hall and Dr. Bakstrom. Even if there were some overlap subject matter, both of these experts would still need to be deposed because there are areas o their testimony which do not overlap at all (i.e. accident reconstruction, chemical composition and decomposition). Since both experts are necessary and would still testify, even if any hypothetical overlap were excluded at trial, plaintiff assumes that the defendants would take the experts' depositions.

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

Continue reading "Tire Blow-Out Causes Sacramento Auto Accident, Part 4 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

In her expert witness disclosure statement Dr. Brown identified seven (7) retained experts Of these seven, two were voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff, leaving five. Of those five:

Paul Smith, M.D. , is a neurologist designated to testify regarding Dr. Brown's head injury and dementia. None of the other retained experts are qualified to provide expert testimony on any medical/neurological issue.

Alexa Chong, R.N., is a home health care expert, designated to testify regarding the value of the services rendered to Dr. Brown by her family members. No other expert designated by any party is qualified to give such testimony.

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

Sven Bakstrom, Ph.D., is an engineer who will give testimony regarding his reconstruction of the subject collision and he analysis of the failure of the tire. No other expert designated by Dr. Brown is qualified to perform accident reconstruction, and no other expert is a mechanical engineer.

Bob Hall, Ph.D., is a professor of chemistry. Dr. Hall will give testimony regarding the chemical factors associated with the failure of the subject tire. Dr. Hall is not an accident reconstructionist. The focus of his testimony will be on the chemical factors that lead to tire failure by age.

Continue reading "Tire Experts Find Fault With Manufacturer In Sacramento Auto Accident, Part 3 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

What is particularly egregious about XYZ 's failure to timely file and serve this motion is that XYZ attempted to have similar motion heard, ex parte, on December 4, XYZ withdrew the motion when its motion to continue the trial date was granted. Still, it is not as though this defendant, whose counsel swore that the proposed motion was attached to a declaration filed on March 25, was prompted by surprise or urgency in drafting this motion.

XYZ had a draft of the motion ready to file on December 4, 2009, and proposed version to attach to a declaration on March 25, yet the defendant declined to file and serve the motion until after the statutory deadline.

XYZ 's motion raises no minor issue. The defendant seeks to exclude the entirety of certain of the plaintiffs experts' testimony before any party has even heard the substance of the testimony. XYZ claims excessive consumption of time (a claim which is proved false herein), yet the same defendant could not manage to provide the court and opposing counsel with adequate notice.

The court should deny XYZ 's motion for failure to comply with C.C.P. §1005(b) if not also for the substantive reasons stated below.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Defendant Tries To Limit Victim's Medical Experts, Part 2 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Anna Brown's Objection and Opposition to Defendant XYZ Tire, Inc.'s Motion for a Protective Order Limiting the Number of Plaintiffs' Experts

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

Defendant XYZ Tire, Inc., failed to give adequate notice, or to file its motion, according to the deadlines provided in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b). C.C.P. §1005(b) requires that the defendant's motion and supporting papers be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing. The hearing is scheduled for April 23, but the moving papers were filed on April 2, only fourteen (14) court days before the hearing. The moving papers, delivered by express mail, should have been served no later than March 28. Instead they were served on Friday, April 2, and delivered on Monday, April 5, more than a week after plaintiffs’ counsel should have received them.

On March 26, XYZ brought an ex parte application to schedule the hearing on this motion for a date between April 16 and April 23, 2010. XYZ 's counsel did not request an order shortening time. To the contrary, defense counsel Allison Greene observed that the motion could be served with "normal notice."

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Victim Fights For Medical Experts, Part 1 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

A motion in limine seeking to preclude any reference to corporate defendant's nonprofit status was properly granted where such status was not relevant to the issues and might improperly curry favor with the jury. See Notrica v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 911, 933-935. As such, the mere mention of plaintiff being a "war hero" or any derivative thereof is substantially prejudicial to the defendants as a jury may be inclined to gamer sympathy and thereby obtain an award to plaintiff solely because of his status as a war hero and not based upon whether or not XYZ was responsible in any manner for the accident or the extent of the injuries sustained in the August 25, 2008 accident. Therefore, pursuant to Evidence Code §352, such evidence must be excluded from trial.

Finally, evidence pertaining to Mr. West being a veteran of WWII and being involved in two of the most well known military battles is not admissible as character evidence for two reasons. First, evidence of character, other than for honesty, is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness. Evidence Code §786. Here, Mr. West's military history does not in any way demonstrate his propensity to tell the truth. Second, even if it did, evidence of a witness's good character for credibility is inadmissible unless evidence of the witness's bad character has first been admitted. Evidence Code §790. As such, Mr. West military history must also be excluded as improper character evidence.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Victims File Suit Against Tire Company, Part 6 of 6" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Evidence Code §352 allows a Court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence where there is a substantial danger that the probative value of the inclusion of such evidence will be outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 897, 904. As the Court in Cardenas further explained, §352 provides grounds for excluding evidence that is inflammatory. 5 Id. at 906. Section 352 requires that the trial Judge to balance the probative value of the offered evidence in comparison to its potential of prejudice, undue consumption of time and confusion. Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (1972) comments, §22.1, pg. 288.

The California Supreme Court elaborated on what undue prejudice connotes and explained such as evidence that carries with it a danger of evoking emotional bias against a defendant while offering little probative value. People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 1196, 1214. Similarly, evidence that would confuse the issues or work to mislead the jury should be excluded pursuant to Section 352. People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 227, 238; Ehrhardt v. Brunswick, Inc. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 734, 740.

In the instant case, self serving statements pertaining to plaintiff's military service or any evidence that plaintiff was a war hero or any derivative thereof is pure character evidence being offered for the explicit purpose of evoking sympathy for plaintiff in the minds of the members of the jury.

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

Continue reading "Defendant In Sacramento Car Accident Case Fights Use Of Plaintiff's War Hero Status, Part 5 of 6" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

THIS COURT MAY EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL BY WAY OF A MOTION IN LIMINE

The usual purpose of motions in limine is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party. FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos. (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1132, 1168. The Court has the inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, because said evidence is irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as being unduly prejudicial or a piece of evidence that will mislead the jury. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 444, 451; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 272, 288. One of the main purposes of motions in limine is to properly narrow the issues for trial and preclude irrelevant evidence from flooding the courtroom. The advantage of such motion is to avoid the obvious futile attempt to "unring the bell" in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceeding before the Court related primarily to irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 325, 337.

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

Evidence Code §350 regulates that only relevant evidence is admissible. This is because relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of evidence but exists as a relation between an item of evidence and a proposition sought to be proved. See McCormick on Evidence, 3rd, § 185. Accordingly, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence to the determination of the action. Evidence Code §210.

Continue reading "Sacramento Auto Accident Leads To Lawsuit for Defective Tires, Part 4 of 6" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs are claiming the tire was defective solely because of its chronological age. Based upon this, plaintiffs claim that XYZ should have warned Ms. Brown that the tire was too old to still be in service. XYZ disputes these claims and contends that the tire failed because it was poorly maintained and had sustained impact damage before this accident. Defendants also contend that Ms. Brown stepped on the accelerator rather than applying her brakes and thereby drove her van into the telephone irrespective of the tire failure. XYZ also disputes the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claimed injuries stemming from this auto accident.

Mr. West and his counsel have asserted on several occasion in this litigation including multiple times in various pleadings submitted to the court including their mandatory settlement conference briefs that Mr. West was a veteran of Pearl Harbor and D-Day, which occurred December 7, 1941 and June 6, 1944 respectively. In fact, when Mr. West appeared for the two Mandatory Settlement Conferences in this case he wore a Pearl Harbor cap. Obviously such references and events have arisen without any relation to this subject accident. Since evidence or testimony of Mr. West's military service is irrelevant and sought solely to garner sympathy, it must be excluded. (See Part 4 of 6.)

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

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Obviously, plaintiffs' interest in including such evidence is to attempt to curry favor with and sympathy from the jury despite this evidence having no connection with this action. Accordingly, evidence of Mr. West's service in the military and his status as a veteran of WWII must be excluded on the grounds that such evidence: (1) is irrelevant to this action pursuant to Evidence Code section 350; (2) is an improper attempt to prove good character pursuant to Evidence Code section 1001; and (3) will necessitate undue consumption of time, create substantial danger of undue prejudice, and confuse or mislead the jury pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.

This motion is made upon this notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and upon all books and papers found within the Court's file, and upon all such other evidence, oral or documentary, as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is a personal injury case brought by Anna Brown and Alex West, arising out of a single vehicle accident that occurred on August 25, 2008, in the early afternoon. The accident occurred in a residential area in the city of Sacramento, California.

Continue reading "Multi-Car Accident Injures Two People From Sacramento, Part 2 of 6" »