The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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 note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s own medical expert, Dr. Levine, testified that the basis for his opinion (of injury) was only as good as the facts upon which they were based, i.e. the history and reports provided by plaintiff. As indicated above, plaintiff’s reporting was replete with distortions and omissions, including but not limited to her failure to reveal to Dr. Levine a subsequent trip and fall for which she sought treatment with a chiropractor for four months. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Finally, plaintiff walked with a prominent limp in front of the jury at all times during the six-day trial. She testified that her limp was always present, both in and out of the courtroom. She was then directly impeached with videotape, shown to the jury, depicting her walking freely and uninhibited, without a cane, just days before the trial commenced. Even without all the additional evidence as discussed above, the video evidence alone was a sufficient basis on which to conclude that plaintiff was not credible and was not truthful in claiming injury in this case.
After hearing all evidence discussed above, the jury held that plaintiff had sustained no injury as a result of the negligence of defendants. California law requires that, in order to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, there must be “no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict” rendered by the jury.
In weighing such evidence, the court is to indulge every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of defendants. Applying this standard in this case there is no question that plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Extensive, substantial direct evidence supported the jury’s verdict as did numerous inferences properly drawn from such evidence.
CONCLUSION
California law requires that, in order to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court must weigh all evidence in a light most favorable to defendants in this case, and allowing all legitimate inferences from such evidence in favor of defendant. When this standard is applied to evidence in this case, it is clear that plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be denied.
For these reasons, defendants respectfully ask that the court deny plaintiff’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in its entirety.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.