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 automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DR. LEE’S RELIANCE ON CASES FOCUSED POST-JUDGMENT OR -VERDICT IS MISPLACED SINCE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT PROVE THAT HE SHOULD BE AWARDED PUNITIVE DAMAGES AT THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION

Dr. Lee relies on Ebaugh v. Rabkin, (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, which is not applicable to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Ebaugh concerned the reversal of a jury's award of punitive damages because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict for punitive damages against the employee and employer. There was also prejudicial error because one of the jury instructions permitted punitive damages against the employer if it found the employee was acting in a willful, reckless or wanton manner without regard to the employer's conduct in directing or ratifying the employee's actions. Id. at 895-896. Ebaugh does not apply to this stage of the litigation since it was an appeal of a jury verdict at trial. The standard for meeting the burden of proof to overturn a jury verdict is certainly different from the notice pleading requirements of California law.

Dr. Lee cites the following cases, all after judgment, verdict or nonsuit, which do not support granting her motion to strike since the cases do not concern the pleadings stage of litigation: American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Muffin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017.

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

Continue reading "Car vs. Pedestrian Accident Caused By Fatigued Sacramento Physician, Part 11 of 11" »

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.)

PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE ALLOWABLE IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION

The California Supreme Court has determined there are circumstances under which punitive damages can be awarded in unintentional tort actions. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1004. In particular, the Supreme Court has upheld punitive damages in cases of negligent driving. See Peterson v. Superior Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147; Taylor v. Superior Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894.

In Taylor, the Supreme Court explained the availability of punitive damages to plaintiffs in motor vehicles tort actions:

A conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice within the meaning of Section 3294 of the Civil Code. In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully [sic] and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.Id. at 895. (emphasis added.) Taylor and Peterson are directly applicable to this case. Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, which is based on Dr. Lee's inarguable awareness of the probable dangerous consequences of operating a vehicle under fatigue and while asleep and her actions of deliberately failing to avoid the dangerous consequences by driving in a fatigued state, is undeniably supported by California law.

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

Continue reading "Negligent Sacramento Doctor Hits Pedestrian On Sidewalk With Her Car, Part 10 of 11" »

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.)

The First Amended Complaint does not contain mere allegations that the Defendant's actions were carried on with willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others. In this regard, Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 and Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163, are inapposite to the present case. Unlike Brousseau and Grieves, Plaintiff did not merely allege that Defendant's actions were "willful" or "malicious." Plaintiff refrained from making the sort of conclusory arguments that were scorned in Brousseau and Grieves, The claim for punitive damages in Brousseau and Grieves were not based on specific facts. In this case, Plaintiff pled approximately four pages of detailed facts that allege Dr. Lee acted without regard for the safety of others in her operation of a vehicle while sleeping.

As alleged throughout the First Amended Complaint, Dr. Lee was incompetent and unfit to safely operate a vehicle because she was fatigued. From her residency training, she knew that she was a foreseeable threat to the health and safety of the public if she drove in a fatigued or sleepy condition. She deliberately was disregarding the high probability that she would fall asleep behind the wheel and cause permanent harm to another person.

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

Continue reading "Sleep-Deprived Sacramento Physician Strikes Pedestrian With Car, Part 9 of 11" »

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 automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Further, the case law cited by Dr. Lee does not support her argument that negligence or recklessness is insufficient to warrant punitive damages. Defendant's citation, to Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co., (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269 actually supports Plaintiff's claim. The Court in Tomaselli held that punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. Id. at 1287.

In this case, Dr. Lee's actions of driving while asleep, when she knew or should have known of the dangerous probability of causing a motor vehicle accident, Were reprehensible. She knew that she was fatigued. She was trained to avoid driving while fatigued. She likely dozed off while driving before falling asleep - yet she continued to drive the trip from Sacramento to El Dorado Hills. She also blatantly violated multiple motor vehicle safety codes and a regulation prohibiting the operation of a vehicle while the driver's alertness is impaired by fatigue. See 13 C.C.R. 1214. Dr. Lee should not have operated the motor vehicle under the conditions, and her decision to do constitutes malice and oppression.

Since Plaintiff's allegations are based on facts and not speculation, the present case is consistent with the decisions cited in Defendant's moving papers, i.e., College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704 [plaintiffs failed to plead facts regarding defendants' intent to injure or facts of vile or despicable conduct]; Colonial Life &Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 792 [a defendant may be liable for punitive damages if it acts with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff's fights]; Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188 [summary adjudication of plaintiff's punitive damages claim was proper since plaintiff's evidence failed to show defendant acted despicably].

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

Continue reading "Reckless Sacramento Physician Strikes Man With Car, Part 8 of 11" »

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 automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF HAS PLED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO ESTABLISH THAT DR. LEE'S CONDUCT WAS DESPICABLE AND WITH A WILLFUL AND CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Dr. Lee pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294, which states in pertinent part:

(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

(c)(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(c)(2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

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

Continue reading "Punitive Damages Sought By Sacramento Auto Accident Victim, Part 7 of 11" »