The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)
The testimony of plaintiff, Alice Hall, was that not only did this accident cause her injury which led to her admission to the emergency room on the night of this accident, but she also suffered economic damages in that she was off work for three (3) days following this accident. According to her testimony she was not able to work on March 6th, March 7th and March 9th. Based on her income level of slightly more than Fifty-Six Dollars ($56.00) per hour her economic damage immediately following this accident was One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($1,233.00). No evidence was submitted by the defendant to refute that economic loss based on her inability to work for a period of time following this accident.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
While the defendant in this action provided considerable evidence concerning Ms. Hall’s neck injury, no evidence was ever submitted which refuted her low back injury. Thus, if this jury had followed the instructions given by this court under CACI 3900, 3901, 3903, 3903a, 3903c, and 3903d the jury would have had to have found that the negligence of Charles White, which was admitted, was a substantial factor in causing harm, as defined by the court to this jury. Once Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative, then the jury had an obligation to determine the nature and extent of the economic and non-economic damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. However, in this case, because the jury did not follow the law as given to it by the court those questions were not answered.
It is respectfully submitted that the un-controverted evidence in this matter was that Alice Hall did suffer, at a minimum, an injury to her low back which required medical care and treatment, and further caused her suffer economic damages as a result of her inability to continue working for a period of time.
The court, the thirteenth juror in this matter, and in weighing the evidence must conclude that there was an insufficiency of the evidence to justify this verdict at least as to an element of damages which was not refuted by the defendant. In that regard, it should be pointed out that no evidence was introduced which would indicate that at the time of this accident Ms. Hall was under the care and treatment of any doctor for injury to her low back or to her neck. As a result, based on the evidence that was submitted, the jury had to find that the negligence of Charles White was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the court acting as the thirteenth juror must find that there was an insufficiency of evidence to justify this verdict. (See Part 6 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.