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.)
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant XYZ, Ins. Co.’s Accident Reconstruction Expert Testimony
INTRODUCTION
This case arises out of a major automobile collision that occurred on Highway 50 westbound near the Sunrise exit on June 17, 2009. At that time, Ms. Black’s vehicle became disabled and stalled on the freeway and was struck with great force by defendant’s vehicle. The collision resulted in extremely serious injuries, including a fractured neck and a traumatic brain injury.
The purpose of this motion in limine is to exclude accident reconstruction testimony by defendant’s experts due to defendant’s insurance company’s intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence, namely the defendant’s vehicle. As is explained in more detail below despite a specific written request to preserve such evidence, the defendant’s vehicle was not only destroyed but plaintiff’s counsel was misled by defendant’s insurance adjuster as to the availability of the vehicle for inspection by plaintiff’s experts.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
As a consequence of such conduct, plaintiff is at an extreme disadvantage, vis-â-vis defense accident reconstruction experts who have had a full opportunity to inspect the defendant’s vehicle. (See Part 2 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.