Articles Posted in Car Accident

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: On February 10, 2011, plaintiff Renee Camp was walking across H Avenue within the south pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection with P Street in Sacramento, California. While she was lawfully within the crosswalk she was struck by defendant Merrel Lance, who was driving a full-size Toyota pickup. As a result of the impact, plaintiff’s body was thrown approximately 20-50 feet into the air, landing on the pavement, suffering severe traumatic brain injuries, and leaving plaintiff incoherent and permanently blind. Plaintiff has undergone two brain surgeries and now requires around-the-clock attendant care, which she will need for the rest of her life.

Plaintiff, through her Guardian ad Litem, Danelle Vant, alleged that defendant negligently operated his vehicle such that he struck plaintiff while she was walking in a designated crosswalk.

Defendant accepted liability; however, defendant questioned plaintiff’s loss of future earnings, the level of necessary future medical care, as well as the level of daily around-the-clock care necessary.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff was taken from the incident scene by ambulance to Sacramento Hospital Medical Center for emergency treatment. Her condition rapidly deteriorated, and due to rising pressure in her brain as a result of the traumatic brain injury, she had two brain surgeries, which included a partial frontal lobectomy with bilateral craniectomy. After an extended stay at Rehabilitation Hospital, plaintiff was discharged to the care of her sisters on April 5, 2011, one of whom she now lives with. Plaintiff requires around-the-clock attendant care, including assistance with dressing, feeding, ambulating, all of her bathroom needs, and making sure she does not wander off.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On June 29, 2008, plaintiff Emerson Adword drove a vehicle owned by plaintiff Cynthia Adword east on Garden Grove Boulevard through an intersection in Los Angeles. Defendant Ralph Merick drove south on the street.

Plaintiff alleged defendant Merick drove over the speed limit and entered the intersection on a red light. Plaintiff also claimed defendant Merick was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

Defendant Merick’s vehicle was owned by the County of Los Angeles and defendant Merick was allegedly working in the course and scope of his employment with the sheriff’s department at the time of the collision.

Plaintiff alleged defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and County of Los Angeles negligently trained, supervised, hired, controlled, operated, and dispatched defendant.

Defendants contended it was disputed who proceeded into the intersection against a red signal. Defendants Merick and County of Los Angeles cross-complained against plaintiffs for comparative indemnity.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On June 28, 2002, in Elk Grove, California, defendant Jerry Curt failed to stop for a red light at a signal intersection and collided with plaintiffs Curt Flemmings and Ryan Walter’s vehicle. Both plaintiffs were rendered incompetent. Walter was the adult son of Reese Walter. Flemmings was the husband of Martha Flemmings.

Reese Walter was appointed the guardian ad litem for Ryan Walter and Martha Flemmings was appointed the guardian ad litem for Curt Flemmings.

ABC Towing & Storage were also named as defendants.

Plaintiffs alleged defendants were negligent in case.

Further, plaintiff Martha Flemmings filed a separate case, for loss of consortium. Following trial in the first case, plaintiffs sued Interstate Insurance in Sacramento Superior Court, for bad faith.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:

Plaintiff Flemmings: extensive internal injuries; head injury that has led to progressive dementia; chronic pain; multiple surgeries; diminished immune system. Plaintiff Walter: brain injury, rendering him permanently childlike in personality and behavior; 24/7 professional supervision.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The cyclist sought compensation for his injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost income, and loss of future earning capacity. The plaintiff also requested damages for Cliff’s loss of services and support, as well as loss of love and companionship, thus, affecting his relationship with his child.

The defendants asserted that Cliff was negligent and failed to mitigate his damages.

The city contended that Cliff was nearly in the middle of the roadway and was not using the available shoulder at impact. It also argued that the city had no obligation to retain bicycle-friendly shoulders since there was no law mandating it, and that the plaintiff’s claimed injuries were caused by a third person for whom the city was not responsible. It also contested the plaintiff’s claim of damages relating to Cliff’s relationship with his child and his ability to work, as a prior accident had also caused a brain injury, which prevented him from working.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

General Injury: Cerebral subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, fractured skull, sternal fracture, fractures of 3 thoracic vertebrae, pneumothorax, brain damage, motor deficits with resulting locomotion ataxia, speech and language difficulties, memory deficits, impairment to executive function, social and emotional deficits including impulsivity; medical expenses; lost income; loss of future earning capacity.

Summary of Facts:

Cliff Hinkle was riding his recumbent bicycle west on Elk Grove Avenue in Sacramento, CA, June 11, 2005. According to Hinkle, he proceeded partly in the lane and partly on the shoulder. The road shoulder allegedly had a steep ditch on its right, and the shoulder reduced in size through the block. Hinkle was on the block between 23rd Street near 25th Street Northeast when he was allegedly struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Greg Devlin.

Hinkle reportedly suffered a cerebral subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, fractured skull, sternal fracture, fractures of 3 thoracic vertebrae, and pneumothorax as a result of the accident. According to Hinkle, he was left with brain damage, motor deficits, including locomotion ataxia, speech and language difficulties, memory deficits, and social and emotional deficits including impulsivity and behavior problems.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s counsel also claimed that the airbag in question did not deploy, either due to a design or manufacturing defect caused by GM, or because it was disconnected during a previous repair at Rango’s dealership.

GM has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and made Annie an unsecured creditor through bankruptcy court.

Rango’s motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction was granted and he was dismissed from the case.

The county denied the plaintiff’s allegations, and contended that Annie suffered a traumatic brain injury from the car accident, which caused her permanent injuries and cognitive effects. The county claimed that Annie’s treatment at SMC did not cause her serious injury, and that there was no negligence on the part of the staff.

Annie claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury due to the negligence of SMC’s staff, which caused her permanent cognitive residuals. She claimed she suffers from severe memory loss and that she often forgets what she is told and where she lives. She said she needs people to write things down so she can remember and that she requires special education with specific accommodations and extra time for work and examinations.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›