Damages Sought By Sacramento Driver After Car Accident, Part 3 of 3

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

This Court May Exclude Evidence That Will Waste Time And Confuse Jurors

Evidence Code ยง352 states that the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially out weighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Emphasis added.) See People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 514; Cubic Corp. v. Marty (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 438, 455.

Any testimony regarding the automobile collision involving plaintiff that occurred in 1998 will likely involve an undue consumption of time. There is no record that plaintiff was in an accident in 1998 and no record of any injury sustained as a result of the alleged accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The only record of a 1998 accident involving plaintiff is his statement to William Hill, P.A., one of the many individuals who have treated plaintiff since the crash with defendant. Thus, plaintiff anticipates that defendant will attempt to introduce the testimony of William Hill that plaintiff told Hill plaintiff was in a 1998 car accident. This testimony will add nothing new to the evidence presented because it has no bearing on liability, causation, or damages. Allowing testimony regarding this event will prolong the trial without good reason or justification.

Further, any mention of this collateral matter will create a substantial danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Should this evidence be admitted, the jury will likely speculate that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a 10-year-old accident.

This will deprive plaintiff of an accurate determination of the damages he suffered as a result of defendant’s carelessness. The court should not permit this confusion of the issues especially when plaintiff received no medical treatment as a result of that accident and was not mentioned in any Traffic Collision Report.

Conclusion

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court exclude evidence of the 1998 collision on the grounds that said evidence is irrelevant, will necessitate undue consumption of time, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury.

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

Contact Information