Articles Posted in Car Accidents

(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’ Hank Choo’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Evidence of Highway Patrol Officer and Traffic Collision Report, and Limitation of Testimony at Trial

Plaintiff requests of the court an order in limine prohibiting the attorneys for all parties offering evidence of, or making any reference to, any conclusions and/or opinions referred to in the Traffic Collision Report generated by Highway Patrol Officer David Smith.

Preliminary Statement

This action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on August 9, 2008, when the defendant crashed her vehicle into the rear of a 2000 Range Rover plaintiff was driving. Plaintiff anticipates that defendants will attempt to introduce evidence of Highway Patrol Officer Smith’s opinion that plaintiff Hank Choo was the owner of the 2000 Range Rover. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Opinions In Police Reports Or Elicited By Way Of Testimony Are Inadmissible
It is well settled that as a general rule opinions of police officers should not be admitted in automobile accident cases. Waller v. Southern California Gas Company (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 747. In Waller, the court correctly disallowed the opinion of the police officer as to whether which party, if any, had violated the right of way.

Continue Reading ›

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 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.)

Victor Lee was convicted in Miami, Florida in 1978 of felony drug possession. There have been no subsequent felonies. Defendants respectfully request that any evidence of or reference to defendant Lee’s 30-year-old conviction is only intended to mislead and prejudice the jury, and convey irrelevant character evidence, and should thus be prohibited from mention. This conviction is three decades old and has no bearing on Mr. Lee’s credibility today, thirty years after the fact. Mr. Lee has been straightforward in his testimony about the motor vehicle accident in which he was involved in this case. There is no similarity between the conduct involved in the felony offense and the conduct of Mr. Lee alleged in this case. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Reference to or the introduction of evidence of this remote felony conviction has no probative value and would be highly prejudicial to defendants in that it would unfairly convey the impression that Mr. Lee’s conviction in the early 1970s is relevant to his character today and of his conduct in the subject motor vehicle accident. And would undoubtedly mislead and confuse the jury into believing that such evidence would somehow be probative of the ultimate issues in this case. Further, the introduction of such evidence would require time-consuming rebuttal by defendants.

Continue Reading ›

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 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.)

THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY ITS PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OR HAS THE RISK OF MISLEADING OR CONFUSING THE JURY

Evidence Code section 352 gives the Court discretion to exclude evidence if its admission will necessitate the undue consumption of time, or if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues and misleading the jury. (Evidence Code §352.) Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, the court should weigh the probative value of proffered evidence against the probability that it will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. (People v. Murphy (1979) 8 Cal.3d 359.) If the Court finds that the probative value of the proffered evidence is weak and a danger of undue prejudice is strong, then it should rule that such evidence is inadmissible. (People v. Stanley (1967) 167 Cal.2d 812.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

There are a number of different factors with which to determine the strength or weakness of the probative value of evidence. Among the factors which the court should consider are the following:

Its materiality;
The strength of its relationship to the issue upon which it is offered;
Whether it goes to a main issue or merely a collateral one; and

Whether it is necessary to prove the proponents case or merely cumulative to other available and sufficient proof.

(Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal. App.2d 750.)

Continue Reading ›

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 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.)

Defendants’ Motion In Limine to Exclude Reference to 30-Year-Old Prior Felony Conviction

Defendants Victor Lee and XYZ Car Rental Of Sacramento hereby move this court, in limine, before jury selection at the trials commencement for an order instructing plaintiff, his counsel, and each and every one of plaintiffs witnesses, not to mention, interrogate on, or in any other manner convey to the jury whether during voir dire, opening statement, testimony, final argument, or otherwise, any reference to or evidence of defendant Victor Lee’s 30-year-old felony conviction. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

This motion is based on the ground that the probative value on credibility of said felony conviction is outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice and that argument about or reference to or admission of such evidence regarding defendant is not relevant and should be precluded on the ground that its entry would be more prejudicial than probative.

THE TRIAL COURT POSSESSES THE INHERENT POWER TO GRANT MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SUCH MOTIONS ARE A WELL ESTABLISHED METHOD OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

The Evidence Presented by Plaintiff at Trial Constitutes “Significant Evidence.”

During the course of this trial, there was significant evidence with regard to the brain injury, and other physical injuries, suffered by Sandra White. Every medical expert, plaintiff and defense, agreed that she did indeed suffer a traumatic brain injury. Further, the testimony of plaintiff’s experts and defendant’s experts as to the extent of Ms. White’s injuries was not identical, but that is surely to be expected. The mere fact that there was contradicting expert opinion evidence does not diminish the solid value of the evidence presented. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, plaintiffs provided significant evidence not only by way of expert opinion, but also through testimony of Ms. White’s family that was consistent with what was seen on the “sub rosa” videotape. There was no significant “contradiction,” as defendant suggests, that would be sufficient to support a granting of a JNOV. Rather, plaintiff put on substantial evidence in support of her injuries and the verdict in this case. Even defendant’s experts confirmed that Ms. White had a brain injury and multiple physical injuries as a result of this collision. Thus, this court should deny defendant’s Motion for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this traumatic brain injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

In Hewitson, and similarly in Rives, the court concluded that the “trial court’s determination of the value of a particular asset [closely held corporation] is a factual one and, if there is substantial evidence to support it in the record, the determination must be upheld on appeal.” Hewitson, 142 Cal.App.3d at 885. The court continued its explanation by stating that if such determination is based solely or in large part on the opinion of an expert, the determination will not be upheld on appeal, unless the opinion satisfies the standard of admissibility set forth in Evidence Code section 801. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Rives (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 138, 149-151; cf.. Solis v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 382, 389-390). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Hewitson court then goes on to explain that Evidence Code section 801, in dealing with the admissibility requirements of opinion testimony by an expert witness, provides in subdivision (b) thereof, three separate but related tests that a matter must meet to serve as a proper basis for an expert opinion. First, the information used must come from (a) the witness’ personal observation, or (b) the witness’ personal knowledge, or (c) an assumption of facts finding support in the evidence. Second, the matter about which the opinion is based must be of a type upon which the expert may reasonably rely. Third, an expert may not base his opinion upon any matter held to be improper as the basis of an expert opinion by constitutional, statutory, or decisional law. Id. (citing People v. Plasencia (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 853, 857).

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

The mere fact that plaintiff’s experts had no knowledge of a video clip from a couple of minutes out of one day in Sandra White’s life that was six months prior to the trial in this matter does not discredit or otherwise diminish the evidence, before the jury that determined Ms. White’s future care needs. While defendant argues that plaintiff’s experts’ opinions were “based upon improper or unwarranted matters,” and as such the “judgment should be reversed,” defendant relies solely on the “sub rosa” videotape that was played before the jury.

The twelve jurors in this matter that found in favor of Sandra White also saw this video and had the opportunity to weigh the credibility of both plaintiff’s experts and defendant’s experts in light of all the evidence, including the “sub rosa” videotape. This court should not now usurp that function and make credibility determinations and weigh evidence, which is contrary to the function of the court when evaluating a motion for JNOV. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant’s Analogy Is Easily Distinguished From this Case
Defendant provides an analogy by referencing In re Marriage of Hewitson and In re Marriage of Rives as support for the proposition that plaintiff’s experts’ testimony does not constitute substantial evidence.

Continue Reading ›

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 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.)

ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE.

For all of the above reasons, such testimony and evidence is also irrelevant. Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to determination of the action. (Evidence Code §§210, 780, 1202.) No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. (Evidence Code §350.) Testimony about these supposed standards and practices for police accident-reporting have no application to determine if the subject accidents in this matter are a singular event or multiple events. These standards merely serve to provide guidelines to officers in their report writing duties. These standards were not developed for the purpose that plaintiff and his expert proposed. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

POLICE ACCIDENT REPORTING STANDARDS ARE AN ISSUE OF LAW AND INTRODUCTION OF SUCH EVIDENCE IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL
An experts testimony on an issue of law is not admissible, including an application of law to facts. The experts testimony on these matter usurps the judges and jurys responsibilities. (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155 (expert opinion on the legal question of duty was not admissible.)

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

However, plaintiff’s experts testified not only to plaintiffs physical limitations, but also to her traumatic brain injury and to her continued future need for care in a supportive environment. Even defendant’s medical and neurological experts, during their trial testimony, agreed that plaintiff Sandra White did in fact suffer a traumatic brain injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Regarding defendant’s seven purported “false assumptions” that supposedly make the evidence presented in this case “insignificant,” plaintiff responds as follows:

Not one of plaintiff’s witnesses was aware of the “sub rosa” video prior to their testimony. Despite defendant’s contention that the sub rosa contradicts the weight of the evidence, plaintiff’s family testified 1) that plaintiff was able to leave the house by herself on occasion and in fact had confusedly wandered in the neighborhood on occasion; 2) that plaintiff was able to dress herself on occasion, but more frequently than not needs assistance; 3) that plaintiff could move her arm somewhat, and that her movement and rotation in her left arm had reduced over recent months; 4) that plaintiff required supervision and was not the same since the collision and that the family tries to watch her as much as they can; 5) that plaintiff could walk unassisted on occasion, having good days and bad days.

Continue Reading ›

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 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.)

This case arises from two consecutive accidents involving the same bus, one at the intersection of Seminary and International involving the Universal vehicle, and one half a block away where the bus was driven into several residences across the street. Setting aside the issue of relative liability on the part of both drivers, the fact that only one police report was generated for both accidents is not probative of whether one or more accidents occurred. It is determinative that there was a relationship between the two accidents, as they both involved the same bus and that they were consecutive in time. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Evidence Code section 352 gives the court discretion to exclude evidence if its admission will necessitate the undue consumption of time, or if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues and misleading the jury. (Evidence Code §352.) Defendants respectfully request that any evidence of or reference to police accident report writing standards as determinative of the status of the accident as a singular event is only intended to mislead and prejudice the jury, and should thus be prohibited from mention.

Continue Reading ›