Articles Posted in Car Accidents

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.)

MORE RELIEF AVAILABLE

In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier of fact and not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury. The court may grant a new trial even though there is sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on appeal, so long as the court determines that the weight of the evidence is against the verdict. (Candido v. Huitt. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 918, 923.)

The court has the power to consider the credibility of witnesses to draw reasonable inferences contrary to those drawn by the jury. (Valdez v. J.D. Diffenbaugh Co., (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 491, 512.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

It is not only the right, but the duty of the trial judge to grant a new trial when he or she believes the weight of the evidence to be contrary to the findings of the jury. (Tice v. Kaiser Co., (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 44, 46.)

A new trial should be granted when the verdict is against law. These grounds apply one when the evidence is without substantial conflict in any material point and insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. (McCowan v. Spencer (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 216, 229.)

A verdict is against law, if the evidence is legally insufficient to support the verdict. (McCowan. supra.)

Continue Reading ›

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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
COURT’S AUTHORITY TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL

A new trial is an examination of the issues of fact in the same court after trial and decision by the jury, court or referee. (Code of Civil Procedure section 656.)

A motion for new trial is proper only to secure examination of the issues of fact. (Rinaldo v. Superior Court. (1936) 15 Cal.2d 585.)

The test of propriety from the order granting a new trial is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, but whether a contrary verdict would have been supported by substantial evidence. (Biggins v. Hanson. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 16.)

A motion for new trial may be entertained where issues of law or issues of law and fact, are determined as well as where issues of fact are decided. (Carney v. Simmonds. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The trial judge is accorded wide discretion and ruling on motions for new trial and exercise of this discretion is given great difference on appeal. (Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts. Inc., (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152.)

RELIEF AVAILABLE
The verdict may be vacated and other decisions may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part and a new and further trial granted if all or part of the issues on the application of the party aggrieved for any of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: (1) Irregularities in the proceeding of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) Inadequate damages;

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiff Alice Hall will move the court to grant her motion for new trial on the issue of damages on the grounds set forth within her notice of intention to move for new trial, filed separately.

INTRODUCTION

The jury in this matter returned a verdict on special questions submitted to them on November 7, 2008.

Prior to the matter going to the jury the defendant Charles White by and through his attorney of record, Jeffrey Smith, had admitted liability. Therefore, the only special questions presented to the jury dealt with the issues of damages. In this verdict the jury found that defendant Charles White’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff Alice Hall. None of the other special questions were responded to.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict within the statutory period after the verdict was entered. No written notice of the entry of the judgment has ever been given to this party. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the notice for new trial, plaintiff alleged the following grounds:

1. Irregularity in proceedings of the court and jury;
2. Misconduct of the jury;
3. Inadequate damages;
4. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the verdict is against law;
5. Error of law occurring at trial.

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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.)

Further, in Sesler v. Ghumman, 219 Cal. App.3d 218, 224 (1990), the court found that a driver making a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic must yield to oncoming traffic in each lane of travel. The court in Sesler stated that while a motorist may waive his or her own right-of-way, neither the law nor common sense dictates that the waiver applies to any other motorist. Id. In Sesler, the plaintiff was traveling south when he stopped his motorcycle in a left turn pocket and waited for traffic to clear in the three oncoming lanes; the cars in oncoming lanes 1 and 2 stopped and motioned for the plaintiff to proceed with his left hand turn in front of them. Id. Seeing no hazard in lane 3 (the lane closest to the curb), the plaintiff commenced his turn; but the defendant, who had been traveling north in lane 1, had moved to lane 3 to avoid the cars he saw stopped in front of him and he collided with the plaintiff in the intersection. Id.

Therefore, it is contrary to the law for defendant White to argue in this matter that she had no duty to anticipate that other drivers would not yield the right of way. See Id. at 222. A party has a right to jury instmctions on his or her theory of the case, if they are reasonable and supported by the pleadings and the evidence, or any inference which may properly be drawn from the evidence. See Sesler, 219 Cal. App.3d at 223. In the present action, defendant’s theory was not supported by any evidence. As a result, it was improper for defendant to argue that Plaintiff caused or contributed to this accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER ARGUMENTS SOUGHT TO IMPROPERLY MOTIVATE THE JURY THROUGH PASSION AND PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Hall asserted to the Court that there was a substantial probability that, if defendant was permitted to make improper arguments concerning claims of Plaintiff’s contribution to the accident, it would inflame the jury.

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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 claims against defendant are based upon defendant’s negligence relating to defendant’s clear violation of California Vehicle Code §21801 (a) (unsafe left turn). In Bewley, the court expressly stated that a driver is under a duty, both by statute and common law, to operate his vehicle without negligence so as to abstain from injuring any other person or property. Id. (Citing Civil Code §1708).

CACI jury instruction 700 expressly instructs a jury that:

A person must use reasonable care in driving a vehicle. Drivers must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, and other vehicles. They must control the speed and movement of their vehicles. The failure to use reasonable care in driving a vehicle is negligence. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant clearly violated Vehicle Code §21801 (a) by making an unsafe left turn in front of Plaintiff. See Vehicle Code §21801(a); Hickson v. Beitel, 103 Cal.App.2d 391, 393-394 (1951). Section 21801 (a) expressly states that:

“[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.”

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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.)

In the present case, it is clear that this Court is entitled to, and actual obligated to, make a separate determination as to whether or not the verdict, which included a finding of seventy-five percent fault on the part of Plaintiff, was appropriate. Further, Plaintiff submitted evidence of medical bills of in excess of $18,970.54. Evidence was also presented concerning the need for future medical care at a cost of in excess of $23,400.00. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that the evidence establishes that the verdict is improper, and that there was inadequate evidence presented by defendant at trial to support such a verdict. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO ARGUE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF AT TRIAL
In advance of trial, Plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude defendant from arguing at trial that Plaintiff caused or contributed to the accident. Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff has any fault in this accident is without merit. At the time of the accident Plaintiff was lawfully proceeding eastbound on West Ave. with the flow of traffic. He had the right of way at all times, and he had the legal right to expect that defendant would not make an illegal left turn directly in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Based upon the exact details of the accident, defendant had no evidence to support a bare claim that Plaintiff somehow contributed to the accident. And defendant presented no such evidence at trial. (See Part 4 of 5.)

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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.)

ARGUMENT
THE TRIAL COURT IS ENTITLED TO AND MUST INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE EVIDENCE, SO AS TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL WHEN A JURY VERDICT IS AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

In a jury trial, each party has two hearings, one before the jury and the other before the court as “a 13th juror.” Nordent v. Hartman, 111 Cal.App.2d 791, 798 (1952). It is not only the right, but also the duty of the trial judge to grant a new trial when he or she believes the weight of the evidence to be contrary to the finding of the jury. Rice v. Kaiser Co.,102 Cal.App.2d 44, 45 (1951)

As part of its review of the verdict, a trial court is not bound by the conclusions of the jury:

In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier of fact and is not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury. The court may grant a new trial even though there may be sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on appeal, so long as the court determines the weight of the evidence against the verdict. Candido v. Huitt, 151 Cal.App.3d 918 (1984).

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

The authority of a trial court to grant a new trial is established and circumscribed by statute, which provides seven legal grounds for such a motion. See Code of Civil Procedure §657(1)-(7). These grounds are: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings; (2) Misconduct of the jury; (3) Accident or surprise; (4) Newly discovered evidence; (5) Excessive or inadequate damages; (6) Insufficiency of the evidence; and (7) Error in law. See Id.

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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 Peter Hall’s Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

On June XX, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Sacramento Superior Court, Plaintiff Peter Hall will move this Court for an order for a new trial of this matter.

Plaintiff’s Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the evidence and case law, the pleadings, documents, records, and files in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence and argument which may be presented at the hearing on this motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION

On or about February XX, 2008, Plaintiff Peter Hall, age 25, was driving his 2001 Range Rover eastbound on West Blvd. in Sacramento, California. Suddenly, defendant Genvieve White made an unsafe left turn in her 2004 BMW X5 SUV from westbound West towards University Dr., crossing three lanes of traffic, directly in front of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was unable to avoid defendant’s vehicle, resulting in a severe collision between the vehicles.

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

On or about March XX, 2010, trial of this matter commenced in Department “X” of the Sacramento Superior Court. During the trial plaintiff presented substantial evidence and expert opinions supporting his position that he had sustained general and special damages totaling in excess of $129,000.00.

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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.)

This Court May Exclude Evidence That Will Waste Time And Confuse Jurors

Evidence Code §352 states that the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially out weighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Emphasis added.) See People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 514; Cubic Corp. v. Marty (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 438, 455.

Any testimony regarding the automobile collision involving plaintiff that occurred in 1998 will likely involve an undue consumption of time. There is no record that plaintiff was in an accident in 1998 and no record of any injury sustained as a result of the alleged accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The only record of a 1998 accident involving plaintiff is his statement to William Hill, P.A., one of the many individuals who have treated plaintiff since the crash with defendant. Thus, plaintiff anticipates that defendant will attempt to introduce the testimony of William Hill that plaintiff told Hill plaintiff was in a 1998 car accident. This testimony will add nothing new to the evidence presented because it has no bearing on liability, causation, or damages. Allowing testimony regarding this event will prolong the trial without good reason or justification.

Further, any mention of this collateral matter will create a substantial danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Should this evidence be admitted, the jury will likely speculate that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a 10-year-old accident.

Continue Reading ›

(Please 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.)

Evidence Of The 1998 Automobile Collision Is Irrelevant And Therefore Must Be Excluded

Evidence Code §350 states that no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. “Relevant” evidence is defined by Evidence Code §210 as “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523 (only relevant evidence is admissible).

Any evidence of the 1998 automobile collision involving plaintiff has no potential to prove or disprove a disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action. Plaintiff was not mentioned in the Traffic Collision Report and he received no medical treatment as a result of the collision. (Morris Depo., 226: 20-24.) There is no evidence that plaintiff suffered from any injury related to a 1998 accident. Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff suffered from any pre-existing medical condition from 1998 to 2008. (Morris Depo., 233: 9-15.) Thus, any inquiry regarding the 1998 collision is not relevant. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Other evidence that may be excluded under the authority of Evidence Code §350 is that which is speculative. See William Dal Porto & Sons, Inc. v. Agricultural Relations Board (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1195, 11-12. The court must exclude evidence if the trier of fact must draw speculative or conjectural inferences from it. See People v. Parrison (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 529.

Continue Reading ›