Articles Posted in Bus Accidents

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Orthopedic Exam:

Dr. Stanley Lee met with the plaintiff on April 13, 2009. The defense concedes that plaintiff fractured her right ankle during the accident sequence. The defense also concedes that the surgery performed on her right knee on February 2, 2006 relates to the accident as well. However, we do not concede that the left knee surgery on October 9, 2009, has any relation to the vehicular accident.

Dr. Lee had an opportunity to meet with the plaintiff prior to her left knee surgery. In his report of April 13, 2009, he concluded that the records do not support a significant injury to her left knee and surgical intervention on her left knee was not indicated, in his opinion. Nonetheless, the surgery was performed six months later. Dr. Lee did not find medical evidence to support that she sustained an injury to her left leg during the accident sequence. As it turns out, plaintiff was having problems with her left knee (and with her right knee as well) prior to this accident, and Dr. Lee believes that the surgery of October 9, 2009 more relates to a trip and fall that the plaintiff sustained years ago rather than to the vehicular accident.

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

Continue reading

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Because of plaintiffs spectacular litany of injuries, she was sent for a neurological examination in March of 2009, and an orthopedic examination in April of 2009. The results of those examinations are set forth below.

Neurologic Exam:

The first examination was performed by orthopedist, Dr. Daniel Stein, at University Health Care. When he examined the plaintiff, she exhibited decreased touch along her right arm and hand. Due to the pattern of claimed sensory loss, Dr. Stein felt that the plaintiff had a credibility issue in this regard. He also had very serious concerns about her claims of cognitive loss. She told Dr. Stein that she had a photographic memory for her entire life, and she went on to describe the various cognitive problems she was having. Dr. Stein felt that the complaints were not credible.

Such devastating symptomatology could be characterized in severe traumatic brain injury cases, but even then, the features described by the plaintiff would be unexpected. It was the opinion of Dr. Stein that her brain injury claims are unreasonable in relation to this particular event and that her cognitive issues are not associated with brain trauma or head trauma.

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

Continue reading

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Back Pain:

Plaintiff claims pain throughout her entire back. The pain is there all the time. Only the degree of pain varies.

Again, plaintiff believes that all of her back pain is as the result of the subject accident. The pain is concentrated in her upper back and in her lower back, but they both radiate into her midback.

Hearing Problems:

Plaintiff wears a hearing aide in her left ear. She believes her level of hearing has decreased as a result of the accident. She has tinnitus in her left ear.

Sleep Problems:

Plaintiff does not claim a problem going to sleep, but she wakes up almost every night for one of two reasons. First, she often experiences cramping which can affect her back, her hips or her legs. When that happens, she has to get up and walk around, and the cramping is alleviated. Other times she is awakened by nightmares associated with the collision of October 17, 2008.

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

Continue reading

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Hips:

Because of the pain and problems in her right ankle and right knee, she started to walk with an unnatural gait. This created pain in her hips. Now, however, she concentrates on walking with an appropriate gait, and the pain in her hips is going away.

Neck Pain:

The plaintiff experiences neck pain every hour of every day. The more active she is, the greater the pain. Sometimes it is a sharp pain, and other times it is a dull ache.

Headaches:

Plaintiffs neck pain seems to be associated with headaches. She has constant headaches dispersed throughout her head. The back of her head adjacent to her neck aches, but she also gets headaches toward the front and top of her head as well. For a while, doctors tried her on migraine medications, but they did not help. She claims that the migraine medication caused severe side affects that actually made things worse.

Vision Problems:

When plaintiff was first deposed in October of 2008, she described incidents where she would lose sight in both eyes as if a black curtain was descending over her eyeballs. In 2010, she described the problems with her vision a little differently.

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

Continue reading

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The right knee operation was performed on February 2, 2009, at Sacramento Orthopedic Center. An arthroscopy of her right knee was performed. She had a torn medial meniscus and chondromalacia. An MRI of her right knee had been performed on December 7, 2008, and showed a 1.5 centimeter horizontal tear of the posterior horn to the medial meniscus.

It was Dr. Hank Gold who recommended that plaintiff have surgery on her left knee. This recommendation was made by way of an agreed medical examination performed on August 23,2008. Even with that, however, surgery was not performed until two years later on October 9, 2009. On that date, Dr. Paul Brown of XYZ Surgery Center in Sacramento performed an arthroscopic repair to a meniscal tear of plaintiffs left knee. It is this surgery which defendants contend does not relate to the subject accident.

PLAINTIFF’S OTHER COMPLAINTS

Plaintiff was last deposed on January 12, 2010. In that deposition, she set forth her injuries as follows:

Left Knee:

As indicated above, plaintiff underwent surgery on her left knee on October 9, 2009. Plaintiff claims that the left knee is completely numb, and she cannot feel anything in it.

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

Continue reading

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT

At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment with Target. Her trip began at the Target store on Madison in Sacramento. She was on her way to the Target Store in Sacramento.

Approximately six months before the accident, in early 2008, plaintiff became a support manager with Target. She wanted to become a supervisor.

As support manager, she was responsible for trouble shooting all departmental positions. She did computer work and generally worked from the middle afternoon until 11:00 p.m. when the store closed.

At the time of the accident, Ms. Anderson was earning $9.80 per hour. She wanted to enter the Assistant Manager Training Program. If she successfully completed that program, she testified that she would earn $14.00 per hour.

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

Continue reading

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 versus bus accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

TRIAL BRIEF

Trial Brief of Defendant, Universal Transit, Inc.

THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiff, Robyn Anderson, filed her complaint on August 10, 2009. The complaint contains two causes of action, but they are basically the same. The first is labeled as one for motor vehicle, while the second is labeled as one for negligence. Plaintiff simply asserts that Universal Transit, Inc., is responsible for her injuries and damages because Ellen White operated her school bus in a negligent fashion so as to cause an accident on October 17, 2008.

Universal and Ms. White answered the complaint on September 19, 2009.

FACTS OF THE ACCIDENT

This case arises out of an accident that occurred on Monday, October 17, 2008 at approximately 3:00 p.m., in Sacramento, California. The accident involved a collision between a Universal school bus and a 1997 Ford Taurus automobile which was being driven by plaintiff, Robyn Anderson. Ms. Anderson had a passenger with her at the time, a co-worker by the name of Joanne Li. Ms. Anderson was in the course and scope of her employment with Target at the time of the accident. Consequently, she filed a Workers’ Compensation action as well as this personal injury action.

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

Continue reading

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 PREJUDICIAL OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL BY WAY OF A MOTION IN LIMINE

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, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial. 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, Evidence Code §350 states that (n)o 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.”

Evidence Code §352 allows the court to exclude evidence where there is a substantial danger that the probative value will be outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. See People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 904. Evidence Code §402 allows the court to hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence outside the presence of hearing of the jury. See Mize v. Atchinson, Topeka v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 436,448.

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

Continue reading

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 Robyn Anderson’s Motion in Limine #4 to Exclude Argument or Reference to the Defense Medical Expert as Independent or to Use the Term Independent Medical Examination

Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for Orders in Limine prohibiting attorneys for all parties from referring to the defense medical expert as independent or to use the term independent medical examination.

This motion is made on the ground that the described order is necessary to ensure that the plaintiff will be accorded a fair trial, and that the trial record in this case will not be tainted, and that the comment or reference to the defense hired expert witnesses as independent creates a substantial danger of prejudice and confusion, and would mislead the jury.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
SUMMARY
On October 17, 2008, while driving a 2002 Universal school bus, defendant Ellen White entered the intersection of Pierson Boulevard and Tulip Drive in Sacramento, in front of plaintiff, Robyn Anderson, who was traveling northbound on Tulip Drive in her 2003 Ford Taurus.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position after a jury verdict for plaintiff. 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 bus accident/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING A NEW TRIAL

In listing the grounds for granting a new trial, the court should parallel the language of Civil Code of Procedure section 657 as closely as possible. (Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 111.) The court must specify in writing the grounds for its decision to grant a new trial, either by minute order or by order signed by the court and filed by the clerk. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 657, 660.)

In addition to specifying the grounds supporting its decision, the court must specify its reasons for granting a new trial on each of the grounds stated in its order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 657; Mercer v. Perez, supra, 68 Cal.2d at 111.) The specification of reasons must be in writing, oral statements will not suffice. (Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 51, 62.)

If the court’s specification of reasons is not contained in the order granting the new trial, the 10-day period for filing a separate specification of reasons runs from the date the minute order granting a new trial is entered (even if written order is later signed and filed). (Code Civ. Proc. § 657.) The 10-day period may extend beyond the 60-day period for ruling on a new trial motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 657, 660.)

Continue reading