ATV Accident Leaves Sacramento Boy With Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 4 of 4

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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

THIS EVIDENCE IS MORE PROBATIVE THAN PREJUDICIAL AS TO PLAINTIFF’S FUTURE ECONOMIC DAMAGES
Under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of evidence must be weighed against the potential for prejudice. (Ev. Code ยง 352.) Here, defendant is entitled to introduce evidence to show that plaintiffs’ contention that Browne’s academic failures are related solely to alleged injuries suffered in the subject accident is not entirely accurate. Defendants are entitled to establish that there are additional reasons he will have difficulty finding gainful employment.

Plaintiffs’ are attempting to introduce this incident as another example of plaintiff’s ongoing memory and cognitive difficulties, which enhances their claim, but simultaneously attempt to keep defendants from introducing the evidence to support their contentions. Evidence cannot be introduced for the benefit of one party, but then be deemed off-limits for comment by the adverse party. If plaintiff should be permitted to introduce the gun-incident as evidence of his injuries, defendants should be permitted to utilize evidence of the incident to show that plaintiff’s post-accident difficulties, and potential future difficulties, do not entirely stem from accident-related incidents.

CONCLUSION

The Court is respectfully requested to deny plaintiffs’ instant Motion in Limine.

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

Contact Information