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.)
Plaintiffs are claiming the tire was defective solely because of its chronological age. Based upon this, plaintiffs claim that XYZ should have warned Ms. Brown that the tire was too old to still be in service. XYZ disputes these claims and contends that the tire failed because it was poorly maintained and had sustained impact damage before this accident. Defendants also contend that Ms. Brown stepped on the accelerator rather than applying her brakes and thereby drove her van into the telephone irrespective of the tire failure. XYZ also disputes the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claimed injuries stemming from this auto accident.
Mr. West and his counsel have asserted on several occasion in this litigation including multiple times in various pleadings submitted to the court including their mandatory settlement conference briefs that Mr. West was a veteran of Pearl Harbor and D-Day, which occurred December 7, 1941 and June 6, 1944 respectively. In fact, when Mr. West appeared for the two Mandatory Settlement Conferences in this case he wore a Pearl Harbor cap. Obviously such references and events have arisen without any relation to this subject accident. Since evidence or testimony of Mr. West’s military service is irrelevant and sought solely to garner sympathy, it must be excluded. (See Part 4 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.