(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.
Third, evidence or argument regarding brain damage would be highly prejudicial to Defendants and misleading or confusing to the jury. Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (excluding evidence that is more prejudicial, confusing, or misleading than probative). The presentation of such evidence could plausibly lead the jury to believe that brain damage is at issue in the case, when in fact it is not.
Fourth, allowing such evidence would unnecessarily consume trial time. Cal. Evid. Code § 352. If Plaintiffs allowed Dr. X. to testify about whether the amount of water consumed during the contest could or would be expected to cause brain damage, Defendants would not only have to present rebuttal expert testimony, but would have to spend time attempting to explain to the jury that despite the fact that such testimony was presented to them, it has no bearing on the claims at issue.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an order granting this motion in limine and exclude evidence or argument regarding whether the volume of water consumed at the contest could or would be expected to cause brain damage.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Moseley Collins is a personal injury attorney serving those badly hurt throughout California. There is absolutely NO FEE to discuss your case and there is absolutely no fee unless we win and get you the money you are entitled to. We are on your side and know what to do to get you compensation and justice.
980 9th St, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 444-4444