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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine #6 to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness David Goldberg; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof in this Traumatic Brain Injury and Car Accident Case.
Plaintiffs Samuel Smith and Linda Smith hereby oppose defendants’ motion in limine to limit the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness, David Goldberg. This opposition is based on the ground that Mr. Goldberg’s qualifications as an expert witness to testify about liability, accident reconstruction and biomechanics are clearly set forth in his curriculum vitae, as well as the fact that California statutory and case law establish that the degree of an expert’s knowledge is a matter affecting the weight of his testimony, not the admissibility of his testimony. Further, the definitive criteria in determining whether a witness qualifies as an expert rest on the witness’s occupational experience, not on the existence of any specific degree as claimed by the defendants’ motion.
Importantly, defendants do not challenge the need for expert testimony to assist the jury in understanding the biomechanics of this case, including the forces involved in the accident, the movements of the plaintiff’s body and the threshold for injury based upon the load exerted on plaintiff’s body.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Instead, they attack the qualifications of plaintiffs’ designated expert witness, David Goldberg with regard to his biomechanical expertise, education and experience. They do not challenge his qualifications to testify as an accident reconstruction expert witness. As explained below and as can be seen by the attached curriculum vitae, Mr. Goldberg is more than qualified as an expert witness as to biomechanical issues. Therefore, defendants’ motion in limine #6 should be denied. (See Part 2 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.