Sacramento Motorcyclist And Family Suffer After Car Accident, Part 5 of 6

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Mr. Greene testified regarding the impact of these injuries upon his life. He was unable to return to his employment for several months and continues to suffer flare-ups which cause him to miss additional days of work. He testified that he suffered many embarrassing and humiliating events where he was physically unable to stand, sit or even walk and that, on many occasions, he was entirely dependent upon his family, sometimes his children, for physical and medical support. These events caused Mr. Greene significant anxiety as he was removed from his usual and customary role of the provider and guardian of his family.

Mr. Greene’s testimony regarding several events where his children were required physically to care for him illustrated the full extent of the damages which were inflicted by the defendant’s collision with his motorcycle.

The damages awarded by the jury were not excessive. Mr. Greene was the victim of a severe motor vehicle collision which was the result of the sole and unquestioned negligence of Ms. Hall. The trauma in this collision was so severe that Mr. Greene suffered a bone bruise and microfractures in the collision in addition to the damage to the overlaying tissue. These injuries were severe and, in several respects, permanent. Although, the defendants have argued that the injury was merely a soft tissue injury, the only medical testimony presented at the trial confirmed that the injuries were severe and permanent. The jury’s verdict was not excessive in any respect. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Law and Argument

In considering a motion for new trial which is based on the ground of excessive damages, the trial court is restricted to the evidence presented at trial. Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (App. 1 Dist. 1996) 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 49 Cal.App.4th 1645. Trial court must weight and consider all evidence in record, including reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, before granting new trial on ground of excessive or inadequate damages and if new trial is granted, it must be based upon totality of evidence, not upon any particular portion of record which can be readily pointed out. Collins v. Lucky Markets, Inc. (App. 4 Dist. 1969) 79 Cal.Rptr. 454, 274 Cal.App.2d 645. A court may not set aside verdict and grant new trial merely because judge does not agree with amount of damages. Phillips v. Lyon (App. 1930) 109 Cal.App. 264, 292 P. 711. (See Part 6 of 6.)

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

Contact Information