Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff Tammy Greene’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs
INTRODUCTION
As the court is well aware, this was a very serious automobile injury, disputed liability case, with a major defense mounted by defendant Li. To boil defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs down to its essence, Li complains that plaintiff’s expert witness presentation was too expensive and the court should therefore not exercise its discretion to award expert witness fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §998. What Li’s motion fails to point out is that the defense experts charged even higher fees, as is reflected in the trial transcript. Just to cite one example, defense expert witness Walter Brown, who testified all of 15 minutes at trial, and charged well in excess of $10,000 for his services in rendering an opinion as to whether the lights were on or off on the plaintiff’s Lexus. Had defendant been the prevailing party in this case, there is little doubt they would have been asking for expert witness costs well in excess of the amount requested on plaintiff’s cost bill.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
More importantly, this fight was the choice of defendant and his insurance company, XYZ. They were presented with an opportunity well before trial to resolve this case for $449,000. Instead, they offered a figure of $200,000 that was less than the medical specials alone. They spared no expense in hiring damage and liability experts that billed well in excess of the expert witness fees requested in plaintiff’s cost bill.
Defendant should not be rewarded for failing to properly evaluate a serious injury case and put not only the plaintiff through needless expense, but also the court, its staff, and the jury, especially during this time of budgetary crisis. To reward defendant and his insurance company by reducing legitimate costs supported by statutory and case law would encourage future litigation and would be a disservice to the purpose of CCP §998. (See Part 2 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.