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 automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
The majority of the new allegations in the First Amended Complaint describe the residency training that Dr. Lee should have heeded in order to avoid causing the subject incident. Dr. Lee was provided training at National Hospital, prior to the incident, about the specific risk posed to the public by fatigued or sleep-deprived medical residents. The article “Extended Work Shifts and the Risk of Motor Vehicle Crashes Among Interns” published by the New England Journal of Medicine on January 13, 2005, was just one of many scientific journal articles offered to Dr. Lee on the subject. The collective information regarding Dr. Lee’s training is directly relevant to the action and establishes the fact that Dr. Lee was acutely aware of the dangerous risks posed to the public, including Plaintiff, by driving home in a fatigued or sleepy condition after being awake for a continuous 18 hours. Plaintiff has sufficiently, and with much detail, alleged the various ways in which Dr. Lee acted with malice and oppression by disregarding her training on a multitude of levels.
The present case is highly distinguishable from Austin v. Regents of Univ. of California (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 354, where the Court held, … the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are purely conclusory. Here, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is replete with facts establishing how Dr. Lee acted with a willful and intentional decision to operate a motor vehicle in a fatigued, sleepy and impaired condition. Her conduct was despicable in light of her residency training at National Hospital. Also, National Hospital provides its residents with alternative means of travel, such as a shuttle, bus, or taxi vouchers, but Dr. Lee willfully and knowingly chose to drive home with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff and the public.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Further, the allegations in Paragraph 32 establish that Dr. Lee acted with oppression, in that her conduct was vile, base or contemptible to a degree that would be looked down upon by reasonable people, and the conduct subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in knowing disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
The allegations contained in paragraph 32 contain salient facts as to Dr. Lee’s malicious and oppressive conduct, and those facts should not be stricken from the First Amended Complaint. (See Part 7 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.