(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.)
Evidence Of The 1998 Automobile Collision Is Irrelevant And Therefore Must Be Excluded
Evidence Code §350 states that no 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.” See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523 (only relevant evidence is admissible).
Any evidence of the 1998 automobile collision involving plaintiff has no potential to prove or disprove a disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action. Plaintiff was not mentioned in the Traffic Collision Report and he received no medical treatment as a result of the collision. (Morris Depo., 226: 20-24.) There is no evidence that plaintiff suffered from any injury related to a 1998 accident. Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff suffered from any pre-existing medical condition from 1998 to 2008. (Morris Depo., 233: 9-15.) Thus, any inquiry regarding the 1998 collision is not relevant. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Other evidence that may be excluded under the authority of Evidence Code §350 is that which is speculative. See William Dal Porto & Sons, Inc. v. Agricultural Relations Board (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1195, 11-12. The court must exclude evidence if the trier of fact must draw speculative or conjectural inferences from it. See People v. Parrison (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 529.
Since there is a lack of documentary evidence that connects plaintiff to the 1998 accident, whether he was hurt in that accident will be total speculation on the part of the jury. This is precisely the type of evidence that Evidence Code §350 endeavors to exclude because it lacks any factual foundation and will force speculative and conjectural inferences. Thus, in addition to being irrelevant, this evidence will likely involve impermissible speculation and should be excluded. (See Part 3 of 3.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.