(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.
11. Defendant’s Theory of the Case
Plaintiff is 100% negligent and is the sole cause of the auto collision and his resultant injuries. There is no evidence that defendant violated any law or ordinance or did something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation, or that defendant failed to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. At all times, defendant used reasonable care to prevent injury to himself and to others.
The accident occurred in one of two ways:
(a) Plaintiff came riding down the sidewalk in violation of Sacramento Traffic Ordinance Section 96 (bicycle on a sidewalk), failed to keep a careful lookout for cars turning right from the Boulevard onto Ridge and failed to yield the right of way to defendant, who was lawfully traveling east on Ridge; or
(b) Plaintiff came riding down the Frontage Road, ran through the stop sign at Ridge, failed to keep a careful lookout for cars turning right from the Boulevard onto Ridge and failed to yield the right of way to defendant, who was lawfully traveling east on Ridge.
In both (a) and (b) above, plaintiff was a relatively inexperienced bicycle rider who was not helmeted and wore no reflective or protective clothing while riding a bicycle at night, with no headlight. Plaintiff is culpable of violating the Code sections enumerated above, thus creating a negligence per se situation. (See Part 7 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.