Articles Posted in Car Accidents

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.)

A motion in limine seeking to preclude any reference to corporate defendant’s nonprofit status was properly granted where such status was not relevant to the issues and might improperly curry favor with the jury. See Notrica v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 911, 933-935. As such, the mere mention of plaintiff being a “war hero” or any derivative thereof is substantially prejudicial to the defendants as a jury may be inclined to gamer sympathy and thereby obtain an award to plaintiff solely because of his status as a war hero and not based upon whether or not XYZ was responsible in any manner for the accident or the extent of the injuries sustained in the August 25, 2008 accident. Therefore, pursuant to Evidence Code §352, such evidence must be excluded from trial.

Finally, evidence pertaining to Mr. West being a veteran of WWII and being involved in two of the most well known military battles is not admissible as character evidence for two reasons. First, evidence of character, other than for honesty, is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness. Evidence Code §786. Here, Mr. West’s military history does not in any way demonstrate his propensity to tell the truth. Second, even if it did, evidence of a witness’s good character for credibility is inadmissible unless evidence of the witness’s bad character has first been admitted. Evidence Code §790. As such, Mr. West military history must also be excluded as improper character evidence.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Evidence Code §352 allows a Court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence where there is a substantial danger that the probative value of the inclusion of such evidence will be outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 897, 904. As the Court in Cardenas further explained, §352 provides grounds for excluding evidence that is inflammatory. 5 Id. at 906. Section 352 requires that the trial Judge to balance the probative value of the offered evidence in comparison to its potential of prejudice, undue consumption of time and confusion. Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (1972) comments, §22.1, pg. 288.

The California Supreme Court elaborated on what undue prejudice connotes and explained such as evidence that carries with it a danger of evoking emotional bias against a defendant while offering little probative value. People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 1196, 1214. Similarly, evidence that would confuse the issues or work to mislead the jury should be excluded pursuant to Section 352. People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 227, 238; Ehrhardt v. Brunswick, Inc. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 734, 740.

In the instant case, self serving statements pertaining to plaintiff’s military service or any evidence that plaintiff was a war hero or any derivative thereof is pure character evidence being offered for the explicit purpose of evoking sympathy for plaintiff in the minds of the members of the jury.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

THIS COURT MAY EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL BY WAY OF A MOTION IN LIMINE

The usual purpose of motions in limine is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party. FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos. (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1132, 1168. The Court has the inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, because said evidence is irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as being unduly prejudicial or a piece of evidence that will mislead the jury. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 444, 451; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 272, 288. One of the main purposes of motions in limine is to properly narrow the issues for trial and preclude irrelevant evidence from flooding the courtroom. The advantage of such motion is to avoid the obvious futile attempt to “unring the bell” in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceeding before the Court related primarily to irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 325, 337.

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

Evidence Code §350 regulates that only relevant evidence is admissible. This is because relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of evidence but exists as a relation between an item of evidence and a proposition sought to be proved. See McCormick on Evidence, 3rd, § 185. Accordingly, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence to the determination of the action. Evidence Code §210.

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiffs are claiming the tire was defective solely because of its chronological age. Based upon this, plaintiffs claim that XYZ should have warned Ms. Brown that the tire was too old to still be in service. XYZ disputes these claims and contends that the tire failed because it was poorly maintained and had sustained impact damage before this accident. Defendants also contend that Ms. Brown stepped on the accelerator rather than applying her brakes and thereby drove her van into the telephone irrespective of the tire failure. XYZ also disputes the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claimed injuries stemming from this auto accident.

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.)

Obviously, plaintiffs’ interest in including such evidence is to attempt to curry favor with and sympathy from the jury despite this evidence having no connection with this action. Accordingly, evidence of Mr. West’s service in the military and his status as a veteran of WWII must be excluded on the grounds that such evidence: (1) is irrelevant to this action pursuant to Evidence Code section 350; (2) is an improper attempt to prove good character pursuant to Evidence Code section 1001; and (3) will necessitate undue consumption of time, create substantial danger of undue prejudice, and confuse or mislead the jury pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.

This motion is made upon this notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and upon all books and papers found within the Court’s file, and upon all such other evidence, oral or documentary, as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This is a personal injury case brought by Anna Brown and Alex West, arising out of a single vehicle accident that occurred on August 25, 2008, in the early afternoon. The accident occurred in a residential area in the city of Sacramento, California.

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Defendant XYZ Tire, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 10 to Exclude Reference to Plaintiff Owen West’s Military History or References to Him as a “War Hero”

XYZ Tire, Inc. (hereinafter, “XYZ”) moves this court in limine for an Order precluding plaintiff Owen West, his attorneys, and all witnesses and experts from referring to, commenting upon, or otherwise attempting to introduce at trial any and all testimony or evidence pertaining to plaintiff Owen West being a veteran of World War II, including references to his involvement in Pearl Harbor and D-Day or attempting to portray plaintiff as a “war hero” or “patriot,” or any variation or derivative thereof throughout the course and scope of this tria,l pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 210, 350 and 352.

The admission of evidence or testimony concerning Owen West being a veteran of World War II and his involvement in two of the most well known military battles, D-Day and Pearl Harbor, both of which occurred over a half-century ago (66 and almost 69 years respectively) cannot possibly be relevant to any issue in the present action.

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

Continue Reading ›

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 case and its proceedings.)

CCP 998(c)(2)(A) deals with the situation where a defendant’s 998 offer to compromise is not accepted by a plaintiff and that plaintiff does not obtain a more favorable award than the defendant’s 998 offer to compromise. In this situation CCP 998(c)(2)(A) states, [i]n determining whether the plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment, the court or arbitrator shall exclude the post-offer costs. The court in Bennett v. Brown (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 685 explained the rationale for this rule excluding plaintiff’s post offer costs when determining if their award is more favorable than the defendant’s 998 offer. To hold otherwise would enable plaintiff to dramatically increase its postoffer cost for the sole purpose of increasing the likelihood that its final judgment would exceed defendant’s offer. Bennett v. Brown, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 688.

As previously discussed, this case is distinct from the situation in Bennet. In this case, the plaintiff’s 998 offer to compromise was rejected by the defendants. Therefore the Bennet rationale does not apply. Moreover, there is nothing in CCP 998 that excludes postoffer costs in situations where a plaintiff’s offer is not accepted by the defendants. CCP 998 provides the following for these situations:

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

Continue Reading ›

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 case and its proceedings.)

MS. HILL IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER EXPERT WITNESS FEES SINCE MS. HILL’S RECOVERY EXCEEDED HER SECTION 998 DEMAND

On January 6, 2010 Ms. Hill made a section 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $18,000. This offer was rejected by defendants. Section 998, which reflects this state’s policy of encouraging settlements (Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 266, 270), creates a financial incentive to encourage the parties to make and accept reasonable settlement offers. (Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721, 726-727.) Marcey v. Romero (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215-1216. It is undeniable that Ms. Hill’s 998 offer was reasonable. It was only $1,550 more than the jury verdict. Ms. Hills offer was far more reasonable than defendants’s 998 offer of $7,500.

Pursuant to CCP § 998 when determining if the defendants did not obtain a more favorable judgment than Ms. Hill’s 998 offer Ms. Hill is entitled to add to her jury verdict both pre and post offer statutorily recoverable costs. Stallman v Bell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 740, 748. The court in Stallman provided the following rationale:

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

Continue Reading ›

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 case and its proceedings.)

Depositions Costs

Each party took only one non-expert deposition in accordance with CCP § 94(b). Ms. Hill did not take the deposition of defendants experts and wold have stipulated to defendants taking the depositions of plaintiff’s two experts, consistent with CCP § 95(b). Accordingly, the deposition costs would have been the same had the case been brought in limited jurisdiction.

Trial Costs: Jury and Court Reporter

Whether in limited or unlimited jurisdiction the facts of the case would have been the same and therefore the trial would have taken the same amount of time. Defendants have provided no authority that Ms. Hill would have been restricted in the number of witnesses she would have been allowed to call at trial had she brought the case in limited jurisdiction. If the jury trial would have been the same length in limited jurisdiction, then the jury fees, jury food and court reporting fees would have been the same wether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction.

Service of Process Costs

Ms. Hill includes costs for service of process for serving three individuals: Sophia Lee, John Lee, and Sgt John Smith. Once again, all three of these individuals would have been served whether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction. Therefore the costs associated with service of process would have been the same wether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction.

https://www.moseleycollins.com/lawyer-attorney-1245027.html

Continue Reading ›

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 case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Requested Statutory Costs Would Have Been The Same Had The Case Been Brought In Limited Jurisdiction

In addition to the Dorman factors, we urge this court to consider other factors as well, such as the limited costs associated with this litigation. Except for procedures specifically designed to lower litigation costs in limited civil cases, the rules of procedure generally applicable to civil actions also apply to limited civil cases. CCP §90. In other words the majority of the procedures in limited jurisdiction are the same as unlimited jurisdiction.

The general right of the prevailing party to recover their costs is established by CCP §1021, which provides that parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to reimbursement of costs as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure §1032 provides for the award of costs to prevailing parties, which includes the party with a net monetary recovery. Ms. Hill is the prevailing part and the party with a net monetary recovery. Had the case been brought in limited jurisdiction she would have been entitled to all of he costs and her costs would have been virtually the same as the costs in this case. Accordingly, there is no reason for the court to award Ms. Hill anything other than all of her requested, statutory recoverable costs because she failed to recover more than $25,000.

The discretion provided in CCP § 1033 makes sense if the plaintiff incurs excessive costs that she would not have incurred had she been in limited jurisdiction. For example, if Plaintiff had taken 10 depositions at a cost of $5000 there would be reason to restrict the costs since CCP § 94(b) restricts the number of depositions allowed by the parties to only one per side.

In the current case, however, the costs would have been the same whether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction. With the limited exception of the initial case filing fee, each costs requested by plaintiff would have been the same if this case was brought in limited jurisdiction.

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

Continue Reading ›