Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also 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.)
Based on the fact that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff was under any medical care and treatment for either her back or her neck prior to this automobile accident, and given the fact that the plaintiff did seek immediate medical care and treatment which was rendered at Kaiser, the evidence must be given weight to support a finding that the plaintiff was harmed as a result of the defendant’s imminent liability.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The question is not whether or not the plaintiff recovered from her injuries over time, but instead is a question of whether or not she was injured or harmed as a result of this negligent conduct and as such incurred both economic and non-economic losses. The testimony in this case was not refuted by any evidence presented by the defendant that the plaintiff following this accident was admitted to the emergency room at Kaiser, received medical care and treatment, was administered powerful narcotics, that the plaintiff followed up her injuries with her primary care physician within two (2) days of the date of this accident, that the plaintiff was off work for a period of time as a result of her injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered pain and suffering as a result of this accident.
For all of the reasons cited herein above, it is clear that the verdict of this jury is against law in light of the instructions given, the evidence presented, and the response of the court to the definition of harm. On that basis, it is respectfully submitted that the court must find that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support a finding of no harm, while at the same time there was substantial evidence to show that harm did occur. On that basis it is respectfully submitted that the court must grant this motion for new trial. (See Part 9 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.