Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.
The mere fact that plaintiff’s experts had no knowledge of a video clip from a couple of minutes out of one day in Sandra White’s life that was six months prior to the trial in this matter does not discredit or otherwise diminish the evidence, before the jury that determined Ms. White’s future care needs. While defendant argues that plaintiff’s experts’ opinions were “based upon improper or unwarranted matters,” and as such the “judgment should be reversed,” defendant relies solely on the “sub rosa” videotape that was played before the jury.
The twelve jurors in this matter that found in favor of Sandra White also saw this video and had the opportunity to weigh the credibility of both plaintiff’s experts and defendant’s experts in light of all the evidence, including the “sub rosa” videotape. This court should not now usurp that function and make credibility determinations and weigh evidence, which is contrary to the function of the court when evaluating a motion for JNOV. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Defendant’s Analogy Is Easily Distinguished From this Case
Defendant provides an analogy by referencing In re Marriage of Hewitson and In re Marriage of Rives as support for the proposition that plaintiff’s experts’ testimony does not constitute substantial evidence.
Def. Mot. at 7/1-5 (citing Hewitson (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 874; citing Rives (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 138). Defendant cites these two cases, which are a family law cases stemming from marriage dissolution, for the proposition that an expert’s testimony based on “improper” or “unwarranted” matters means the opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. Noably, defendant fails to identify either the Hewitson or Rives court’s reasoning for such a proposition.
Defendant cites these two cases, which are a family law cases stemming from dissolution of marriage, for the proposition that an expert’s testimony based on improper or unwarranted matters means the opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. Defendant fails to identify either the Hewitson or Rives court’s reasoning for such a proposition. (See Part 9 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.