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 car accident case and its proceedings.)
Further, in Sesler v. Ghumman, 219 Cal. App.3d 218, 224 (1990), the court found that a driver making a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic must yield to oncoming traffic in each lane of travel. The court in Sesler stated that while a motorist may waive his or her own right-of-way, neither the law nor common sense dictates that the waiver applies to any other motorist. Id. In Sesler, the plaintiff was traveling south when he stopped his motorcycle in a left turn pocket and waited for traffic to clear in the three oncoming lanes; the cars in oncoming lanes 1 and 2 stopped and motioned for the plaintiff to proceed with his left hand turn in front of them. Id. Seeing no hazard in lane 3 (the lane closest to the curb), the plaintiff commenced his turn; but the defendant, who had been traveling north in lane 1, had moved to lane 3 to avoid the cars he saw stopped in front of him and he collided with the plaintiff in the intersection. Id.
Therefore, it is contrary to the law for defendant White to argue in this matter that she had no duty to anticipate that other drivers would not yield the right of way. See Id. at 222. A party has a right to jury instmctions on his or her theory of the case, if they are reasonable and supported by the pleadings and the evidence, or any inference which may properly be drawn from the evidence. See Sesler, 219 Cal. App.3d at 223. In the present action, defendant’s theory was not supported by any evidence. As a result, it was improper for defendant to argue that Plaintiff caused or contributed to this accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER ARGUMENTS SOUGHT TO IMPROPERLY MOTIVATE THE JURY THROUGH PASSION AND PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Hall asserted to the Court that there was a substantial probability that, if defendant was permitted to make improper arguments concerning claims of Plaintiff’s contribution to the accident, it would inflame the jury.
Defendant compounded the effort to inflame the jury by repeatedly referring to Plaintiff Hall as a “young man,” and argued that traffic accidents seemed to always be caused by young men. Defendant blurted these arguments to the jury before Plaintiff could object, and the damage was done before a curative instruction could be made by the Court. As a matter of law, such arguments are clearly improper, and violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article 1 of the California Constitution.
The verdict is evidence that Plaintiff’s fears of passion and prejudice by the jury due to defendant’s misconduct were realized. The jury returned an inadequate award, and then reduced the award by an unbelievable seventy-five percent based upon defendant’s improper arguments.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff submits that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial upon which the jury could have found that Plaintiff legally contributed to the accident in question. Further, the jury was clearly motivated by defendant to react with passion and prejudice, resulting in an inadequate award of damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains that the complete lack of evidence to support the verdict must result in the order for a new trial of the matter.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.