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.)

In Galanek, the court reiterated a maxim of jurisprudence that is apropos here: A fundamental principal of our legal system is that "no one can take advantage of his own wrong," citing Civil Code section 3517. Galanek v. Wismar at 1428. Similarly here, XYZ, Ins. Co., cannot be allowed a procedural advantage on liability due to its destruction of critical evidence.

Unlike the cases of inadvertence above, here XYZ, Ins. Co., did not lose or misplace evidence - it consciously destroyed it, knowing that this was a serious injury claim and that litigation was likely to follow. Further, XYZ, Ins. Co. misrepresented to plaintiff's counsel that the Brown vehicle had never been inspected by their experts, when in fact such an inspection had taken place weeks before. And moreover, XYZ, Ins. Co. was placed on written notice within six weeks from the date of this accident that plaintiff demanded that the Brown vehicle be preserved for inspection by experts. As the law makes clear: [T]he court has broad powers ... to make whatever just orders are necessary to remedy the spoliation. Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 8 (emphasis added). This court should exercise those powers and grant the relief sought so that Ms. Black is not severely prejudiced from recovering the full measure of her damages from defendants for her severe injuries.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Plaintiff's Car Destroyed By Insurance Company After Accident, Part 7 of 7" »

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.)

It is anticipated that the defendant will claim that the destruction of the vehicle was accidental or non-intentional. Even if the court finds that defendant Brown's spoliation of evidence was inadvertent, the court should still grant plaintiff's requests for evidentiary sanctions: where a party inadvertently destroys evidence, the court may issue sanctions intended to level the playing field or even up the score. Puritan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3rd 877, 883-884. In this case, an expert witness inadvertently lost a failed drive shaft. The court reviewed numerous early California authorities and determined that, None of these authorities suggests a willfulness requirement for violations of subdivision (b)(2). Puritan Ins. Co., 1717 Cal.App.3rd at 884.

In Galanek v. Wismar (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1427, the court properly shifted the burden of proving lack of causation to the defendant attorney who negligently permitted a storage facility to destroy a defective automobile before either party could perform an inspection. The destruction of evidence made it impossible for plaintiff to prove that defendant's negligence was the cause of her losses. (Ibid.) In addition, there is no intentional standard set forth in section 2023.030, merely that such sanctions can be issued against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Destroying key evidence under the facts as outlined above is surely a misuse of the discovery process.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Driver Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury In Car Accident, Part 6 of 7" »

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.)

DEFENDANT'S SPOLIATION OF CRITICAL EVIDENCE NECESSITATES AN ORDER TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANT'S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING

The guiding California Supreme Court case controlling spoliation of evidence is Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1. In Cedars, plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action arising out of a birth injury. During discovery, the hospital was unable to locate key medical records pertaining to the birth. The plaintiff then filed a separate cause of action of intentional spoliation of evidence. The court began the opinion by noting the serious affront to justice that is caused by destroying evidence:

The intentional destruction of evidence is a grave affront to the cause of justice and deserves our unqualified condemnation. 18 Cal.4th1, 4.

In the opinion, although the court dispensed with a specific cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence, it confirmed the broad powers that the court has in dealing with issues such as are presented in this case.

Destroying evidence in response to a discovery request after litigation has commenced would surely be a misuse of discovery within the meaning of section 2023, as would such destruction in anticipation of a discovery request. The sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023 are potent.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Defendant Destroys Critical Evidence, Part 5 of 7" »

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.)

XYZ, INS. COMPANY’S DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE HAS SEVERELY PREJUDICED THE ABILITY OF PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN FACTS CRITICAL TO LIABILITY ISSUES

Defendant's decision to destroy their insured's vehicle and then to misrepresent that it had never been inspected by their experts, has caused serious prejudice to plaintiff's ability to prove certain issues extremely important to liability. Such issues include:

(1) Crush analysis that would allow plaintiff's experts to more accurately assess the speed of defendant Brown's vehicle when he smashed into plaintiff's stalled car on the freeway.

(2) Determining the speed of defendant Brown's vehicle would also be important in addressing defendant's perception and reaction times when he observed the plaintiff's stalled vehicle prior to this accident.

(3) The distance of illumination from defendant Brown's headlights in front of him is also a factor that in part is based upon his rate of speed.

(4) The Delta V that all accident reconstructionists use in determining the change of velocity, which equates into the force of impact and is also a fundamental calculation for purposes of accident reconstruction.

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

Continue reading "Automobile Crash Leaves Sacramento Woman With Serious Brain Injuries, Part 4 of 7" »

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.)

Shortly after this accident occurred, XYZ, Ins. Co. retained ABC Engineering, Inc., and directed them to conduct an inspection of both of the involved vehicles. As the report from defense counsel confirms, an inspection by ABC's engineer of the defendant's 2008 Nissan 350Z occurred on August 4, 2009. Thus, despite the fact that XYZ, Ins. Co. was aware of a serious injury claim within weeks of this accident, and was obviously aware of the importance of having engineers inspect the involved vehicles, a conscious decision was apparently made to destroy the defendant's vehicle and make it unavailable for inspection by plaintiff's expert. Consequently, the specific purpose of this motion is to preclude any defense experts from testifying as to an accident reconstruction of the subject accident because of their significant advantage in having their engineers personally inspect the defense vehicle, while depriving plaintiff of a similar opportunity.

CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT EVENTS:

June 17, 2009: Date of the subject accident.

July 17, 2009: Multiple telephone conversations between XYZ, Ins. Co. and Robyn Black's parents about the accident and her severe injuries.

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

Continue reading "Experts Battle In Sacramento Car Accident Lawsuit, Part 3 of 7" »

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.)

Within approximately two weeks after this accident, defendant Brown's insurance company, XYZ, Ins. Co., made contact with plaintiff's parents. XYZ, Ins. Co. was advised as to the serious injuries suffered by plaintiff during numerous telephone conversations that took place with the Black family and XYZ, Ins. Co.'s adjuster at that time, Kyle Hill. Additionally, Mr. Hill sent correspondence on behalf of XYZ, Ins. Co. to the Black family requesting authorizations to obtain medical records, thus further evidencing the fact that XYZ, Ins. Co. was fully aware that injuries were sustained. XYZ, Ins. Co. obviously recognized the importance of inspecting the involved vehicles, as reflected by their correspondence of July 31, 2009, to the plaintiff asking permission to have their "accident reconstruction engineer" inspect the Black's 2007 BMW 325i that was involved in this accident.

In early August of 2009, this law firm was retained to represent Robyn Black. Correspondence was sent to the adjuster Kyle Hill, which contained a paragraph as follows:

"I also request that you preserve your insured's vehicle for inspection purposes. I am sure you will do all within your power to preserve any relevant evidence for this case, as required by California Penal Code section 135."

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

Continue reading "Auto Accident Leaves Sacramento Woman With Brain Injury, Part 2 of 7" »

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's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant XYZ, Ins. Co.’s Accident Reconstruction Expert Testimony

INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of a major automobile collision that occurred on Highway 50 westbound near the Sunrise exit on June 17, 2009. At that time, Ms. Black's vehicle became disabled and stalled on the freeway and was struck with great force by defendant's vehicle. The collision resulted in extremely serious injuries, including a fractured neck and a traumatic brain injury.

The purpose of this motion in limine is to exclude accident reconstruction testimony by defendant's experts due to defendant's insurance company's intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence, namely the defendant's vehicle. As is explained in more detail below despite a specific written request to preserve such evidence, the defendant's vehicle was not only destroyed but plaintiff's counsel was misled by defendant's insurance adjuster as to the availability of the vehicle for inspection by plaintiff’s experts.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Injuries In Car Accident, Part 1 of 7" »