Articles Posted in Car Accidents

(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.)

Plaintiffs Do Not Need to Show that Defendant Intended to Injure Sean Black In Order to Recover Punitive Damages

By describing the subject crash as “merely” accidental, Hill argues that Sean cannot recover punitive damages because he does not have evidence that Hill intended to injure Sean. First, the crash was not just a simple accident. Hill caused the crash by acting recklessly in a number of ways just before the crash. Defendant’s conduct made the crash all but inevitable. But more importantly, there is no bar to recovering punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 if plaintiffs cannot prove that defendant intended to harm plaintiff.

A conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others means a conscious disregard of the probability that the actor’s conduct will result in injury to others. (Taylor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895.) Here, Hill’s conduct immediately before the crash significantly increased the chances of injury to others, especially to Sean. In order to obtain punitive damages, plaintiff need not prove that defendant intended to cause injury to the plaintiff. (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 808.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Rather, plaintiff needs to only show that defendant acted in conscious disregard for other people’s safety. (West v. Johnson & Johnson Prods., Inc. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 831, 867 (inadequate product testing); Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867 (landlord’s knowledge for years that conditions on premises created danger of criminal attacks); Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279 (allowing grease to build up near gas station pumps).)

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.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

A Triable Issue of Material Fact Exists as to Whether Defendant Hill Acted with Malice, Oppression, and Willful and Conscious Disregard of the Safety of Sean Black.

Summary adjudication to dispose of a plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is granted only if the moving party is able to prove that there is no merit to the punitive damages claim. (Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1).) A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in a tort claim if there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civil Code § 3294(a).) Malice is defined as despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ.C. § 3294(c)(1).) Oppression is similarly defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Civ.C. § 3294(c)(2).)

Defendant Hill claims that plaintiffs cannot prove that Hill’s conduct before the violent collision and rollover merits the imposition of punitive damages. Defendant’s motion ignores overwhelming evidence of his own despicable conduct, which directly led to the crash and Sean’s serious injuries. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the moments before the subject collision, Hill intentionally acted in a number of ways that exponentially raised the risk of a high speed crash and significant harm to Sean Hill. They include:
*repeatedly cutting off Sean;
*driving erratically;
*shaking his fist while leaning across his front passenger seat;
*doing all of the above while holding a cigarette;
*doing all of the above while traveling at 65 to 70 miles per hour; and
*swerving towards Sean’s vehicle.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the early stages 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 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.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment and summary adjudication are to be granted only with great caution. (Dolquist v. City of Bellflower (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 261, 266.) In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court’s sole function is to determine from the submitted evidence whether there is a triable issue as to any material fact. (C.C.P. §437c(c); Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 926.) The court should strictly construe the moving party’s evidence and liberally construe the evidence presented by the motion’s opponent. (Zavala at 926; Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1620, 1627.)

Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Id., citing Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) If there is a triable issue, it is error for the trial court to grant summary judgment. (Doiichin v. Guerroero (1995) Cal.App.4th 1832, 1837.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action or claim for damages has no merit only if he has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action or claim for damages cannot be established. (C.C.P. § 437c(p)(2).)

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.)

FACTUAL SUMMARY

William Hill has difficulty controlling his anger. (See, Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) Many of his friends have told Sean that he has anger control issues. About a year before the subject crash, Hill was involved in a fistfight at a bar and gave the other combatant a bloody nose.

On September 21, 2008, William Hill and Sean Black were both traveling eastbound on Interstate 80. Sean saw Hill’s car in the rear view mirror, accelerating towards him and changing lanes. Hill, without using his turn signal or slowing down, cut Sean off, squeezing his car between a truck and Sean’s SUV. Sean immediately braked hard to give Hill more room. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Hill and Sean continued traveling eastbound on Interstate 80. At one point, when they were driving next to each other, Hill flipped Sean off. Moreover, Hill repeatedly cut off Sean.

Just before the collision, Hill leaned across his front passenger seat and shook his fist at Sean. At the same time, Hill was holding a cigarette and driving at 65 to 70 miles-per-hour. He made a sudden, jerking movement and his car swerved towards Sean’s SUV.

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.)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication
INTRODUCTION

Sean Black is suing defendants William Hill (“Hill”) and Liquor Products, Inc. (“L-P”) for the serious neck and back injuries he suffered when the car driven by William Hill struck Sean Black’s SUV at highway speeds, causing Sean’s SUV to violently roll over three times, crushing its roof in the process. Sean’s wife Carrie Black has a loss of consortium claim. William Hill was employed by L-P and was within the course and scope of employment when the collision took place.

This motion should be denied on both substantive and procedural grounds. Substantively, defendant Hill brings this motion on the grounds that there is no evidence to support plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. The motion should be denied because ample evidence exists to show that defendant Hill acted with malice, oppression, and a willful and conscious disregard of the safety of Sean Black. Just before the subject collision, defendant Hill consciously and recklessly cut off Sean repeatedly, drove erratically, swerved towards Sean, and shook his fist at Sean, all while holding a cigarette and traveling at 65 to 70 miles-per-hour.

Defendant Hill’s motion must also be denied on substantive grounds because he incorrectly argues that punitive damages are allowable only if the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff. Neither statutory nor case law supports this baseless requirement. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

(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.)

U.S. Supreme Court Standard

Wainright v Witt, (1985) 496 US 412 held the standard for exercising a challenge for cause is whether the jury may be “substantially impaired” from following the law. A question of whether the juror can “follow the law” is insufficient to meet this standard. Most jurors try to be fair and most will say that they can follow the law. And, indeed jurors usually use their best efforts to comply with their duties. But, there may be circumstances of a specific case or a specific rule of law in which the juror may try to follow the law, but is impaired from doing so, by virtue of their knowledge, training, experience, or other factors. The parties in personal injury cases are entitled to know about jurors who have no impediments to applying the law as instructed by the court, not jurors who may try and fail to comply.

Trial Counsel Must be Given Latitude to Discover Bias

In considering the challenges for cause, California has detailed provisions for challenges. There are three grounds for a challenge for cause: 1) general disqualification, which disqualifies the juror from serving in the action on trial; 2) implied bias, as, when the existence of the facts as ascertained, in judgment of law disqualifies the juror; or 3) actual bias, when a state of mind exists on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party. (CCP §225, (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(c). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A challenge for implied bias may be taken for one or more of the following causes:

(e) Having an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action founded upon knowledge of its material facts or of some of them.

(f) The existence of a state of mind in the juror evincing enmity against, or bias towards, either party. (CCP §229.)

Continue Reading ›

(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.)

Scope of Requested Voir Dire

The scope of questioning has to accomplish the goal of a “fair and impartial jury” in this personal injury matter, which may involve numerous issues. Although CCP §222.5 permits the court to impose some limits, the statute specifically requires that the court take into account: any unique or complex elements, legal or factual, in the case and the individual responses or conduct of jurors which may evince attitudes inconsistent with suitability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in the particular case.

(California Code of Civil Procedure) section 222.5 grants counsel in a civil trial the right to conduct “oral examination of prospective jurors to enable them to exercise both peremptory and for cause” challenges. The scope of such examination may be restricted by the trial court within reasonable limits that allow counsel liberal and probing examination to discover bias and prejudice within the circumstances of each case. Bly-Magee v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 318, 324. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Time Restrictions
CCP §222.5 specifically prohibits arbitrary time limits: Specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits shall not be imposed. In the past, some local and state court rules sought to impose time limits. However, this rule has long ago been withdrawn.

Continue Reading ›

(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 Trial Brief on Jury Voir Dire: Personal Injury Case
California Law Provides for the Intelligent Exercise of Peremptory Challenges

Plaintiff, Hank Choo, by and through his attorney of record, hereby requests the right to have an adequate voir dire conducted by counsel. California Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter CCP) §222.5. provides that following examination by the court:

“…counsel for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any of the prospective jurors in order to enable counsel to intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.”

Since the purpose of voir dire is intended to select a fair and impartial jury in civil trials (CCP §222.5), the statute provides:

“During any examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial judge should permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case.” For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Because of the need for follow up questions, justice may on occasion require counsel to cover the same subject or similar questions to those posed by the court. CCP §222.5 recognizes this fact, and states: The fact that a topic has been included in the judge’s examination should not preclude additional non-repetitive or non-duplicative questioning in the same area by counsel.

Continue Reading ›

(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.)

Officer Smith’s Traffic Collision Report Should Be Excluded
Vehicle Code §20013 sets forth the rule regarding the admissibility of police reports. It states in pertinent part: “No such accident report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal arising out of an accident … ”

In Box v. California Date Growers Association (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 266, the court applied Vehicle Code §20013 when it properly excluded the officer’s police report following a motorcycle versus truck accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that the Highway Patrol Officer’s traffic report was not admissible. Thus, in the present case Officer Smith’s Traffic Collision Report should be excluded in its entirety pursuant to Vehicle Code §20013 and the above-cited authority. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Highway Patrol Officer Smith Is Not A Qualified Expert Witness And His Testimony Lacks Foundation

California Evidence Code §720 states: (a) A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown before the witness may testify as an expert.

In the present case, defendants have not demonstrated a foundation that Officer Smith has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject of automobile ownership. Further, there is no foundation of reliability of information the officer used to form the opinion stated. Thus, any testimony on this subject by Officer Smith should be excluded because he is not qualified to testify as an expert on this subject.

Continue Reading ›

(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.)

Likewise, in the present case, any conclusions reached by the police officer who investigated the accident should not be allowed by this court. More specifically, the officer’s opinions and conclusions in the police report or in the form of testimony should not be allowed.

In Francis v. Sauve (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 102, the court analyzed the issue in greater detail. The court reiterated that a police officer may testify as to the point of impact when his opinion is based upon percipient observations. The court discussed its refusal to admit into evidence expert opinions in traffic accident cases where the factors involved are too varying and too indefinite to constitute the basis of an opinion, such as the probable course of the cars after impact (Fishman v. Silva (1931) 116 Cal.App. 1). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Moreover, this issue was litigated during the State Farm’s motion for summary adjudication, which was denied. The defense attempted to have the issue of whether there was insurance coverage decided by the California Highway Patrol officer. State Farm’s UMF #6 and plaintiff’s objection:

6. Officer David Smith determined at the scene of the accident that Plaintiff Hank Choo is the owner of the 2000 Range Rover driven by plaintiff.

6. Objection: Police officer’s determination of ownership is irrelevant. Waller v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 747, 755

Continue Reading ›