Articles Posted in Car Accidents

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s own medical expert, Dr. Levine, testified that the basis for his opinion (of injury) was only as good as the facts upon which they were based, i.e. the history and reports provided by plaintiff. As indicated above, plaintiff’s reporting was replete with distortions and omissions, including but not limited to her failure to reveal to Dr. Levine a subsequent trip and fall for which she sought treatment with a chiropractor for four months. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Finally, plaintiff walked with a prominent limp in front of the jury at all times during the six-day trial. She testified that her limp was always present, both in and out of the courtroom. She was then directly impeached with videotape, shown to the jury, depicting her walking freely and uninhibited, without a cane, just days before the trial commenced. Even without all the additional evidence as discussed above, the video evidence alone was a sufficient basis on which to conclude that plaintiff was not credible and was not truthful in claiming injury in this case.

After hearing all evidence discussed above, the jury held that plaintiff had sustained no injury as a result of the negligence of defendants. California law requires that, in order to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, there must be “no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict” rendered by 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 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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

The First Amended Complaint does not contain mere allegations that the defendant’s actions were carried on with willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others. In this regard, Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 and Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163 are inapposite to the present case. Unlike Brousseau and Grieves, Plaintiff did not merely allege that defendant’s actions were “willful” or “malicious.” Plaintiff refrained from making the sort of conclusory arguments that were scorned in Brousseau and Grieves, the claims for punitive damages in Brousseau and Grieves were not based on specific facts. In this case, plaintiff pled approximately 4 pages of detailed facts specifically alleging Dr. Black acted without regard for the safety of others in her operation of a vehicle while sleeping. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

As alleged throughout the First Amended Complaint, Dr. Black was incompetent and unfit to safely operate a vehicle because she was fatigued. From her residency training, she knew that she was a foreseeable threat to the health and safety of the public if she drove in a fatigued or sleepy condition. She deliberately was disregarding the high probability that she would fall asleep behind the wheel and cause permanent harm to another person. Despite her acute knowledge of the high risk of injuring someone with the vehicle, Dr. Black consciously chose to drive home while in a fatigued, sleep-deprived and exhausted condition. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff still claims, in current moving papers, that her bus was “rammed” by defendant’s vehicle. In sharp contrast, the jury was shown photographs, copies of which are attached, which clearly reflect that defendant’s vehicle merely scraped along the left front cover of the bus. Further evidence established that no hidden or structural damage occurred to the bus. Damage to defendant’s van was minor, estimated at approximately $100. Common sense and inferences drawn from such evidence allowed the jury to conclude that no injury would result from the impact.

Defendant called Dr. Edward Stein, a physicist, to reinforce the unlikelihood of injury. Dr. Stein convincingly and completely refuted plaintiff’s claim of injury. He testified as to the force of the collision, and explained to the jury that plaintiff would have experienced a vibration in her seat inside the 40-foot bus due to contact from defendant’s vehicle. Similarly, Officer Brown testified that plaintiff may have been jostled by the contact between vehicles, but that he did not believe that plaintiff could have been injured.

Medical evidence established that plaintiff originally complained of minor contusion type injuries immediately following the accident. By the time of trial, plaintiff’s claims had expanded to include significant problems in her neck, low back, left hip, left buttocks, left thigh, left shin, left foot, left shoulder, headaches, and post traumatic stress disorder. Medical records prepared by plaintiff’s own providers note that plaintiff was an unreliable reporter, and prone to misrepresentation, exaggeration, and inconsistent reporting of symptoms. Plaintiff’s gross overreaching was made clear in evidence to the jury and undoubtedly contributed to erosion of plaintiff’s credibility.

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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

Since plaintiff’s allegations are based on facts, not mere speculation, the present case is consistent with the decisions cited in defendant’s moving papers, i.e., College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704 [plaintiffs failed to plead facts regarding defendants’ intent to injure or facts of vile or despicable conduct]; Colonial Life &Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 792 [a defendant may be liable for punitive damages if it acts with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s fights]; Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188 [summary adjudication of plaintiff’s punitive damages claim was proper since plaintiff’s evidence failed to show defendant acted despicably]; Hilliard v. AM. Robbins (1983.) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391 [plaintiff improperly alleged a separate cause of action for punitive damages instead of pleading the. statutory language in the negligence and strict liability causes of action]; Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [plaintiff did not plead any facts relative to malice]; Roth v. Shell Oil Co. (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 676; and Fickv. Nilson (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 683.

Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant knowingly and willfully decided to drive home after working excessive hours on the night of the incident, in spite of residency training that stated operating a vehicle under those conditions was likely to result in physical harm. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

PLAINTIFF HAS PLED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO ESTABLISH THAT DR. BLACK’S CONDUCT WAS DESPICABLE AND WITH A WILLFUL AND CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Dr. Black pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294, which states in pertinent part:

(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(c)(1) Malice means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(c)(2) Oppression means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

As established above, under California’s notice pleading requirement, plaintiff only has to plead ultimate facts sufficient to apprise defendant of the basis upon which plaintiff is seeking relief. Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Dr. Black’s actions fit within the meaning of C.C. § 3294. In unambiguous language, plaintiff has described Dr. Black’s actions in paragraphs 14, 15, 29-32, 37-39 and 42 of the First Amended Complaint that amount to malice and oppression, i.e., despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SUPPORTS THE JURY’S VERDICT AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AS SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 629 allows for a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and provides that the court “shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.” For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In considering such motions, California Courts uniformly hold that such motions shall be granted only when there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the verdict rendered. In Newing v. Cheatham (1975) 124 C.R. 193, the court held as follows:

A directed verdict may be granted, when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in fayor of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it can be said that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of such party, if such a verdict has been rendered. 124 C.R. at 198.

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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

The majority of the new allegations in the First Amended Complaint describe the residency training that Dr. Black should have heeded in order to avoid causing the subject auto accident. Dr. Black was provided training at Central Hospital, prior to the incident, about the specific risk posed to the public by fatigued or sleep-deprived medical residents. The article “Extended Work Shifts and the Risk of Motor Vehicle Crashes Among Interns,” published by the New England Journal of Medicine on January 13, 2005, was just one of many scientific journal articles offered to Dr. Black on the subject. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The collective information regarding Dr. Black’s training is directly relevant to the action and establishes the fact that Dr. Black was acutely aware of the dangerous risks posed to the public, including plaintiff, by driving home in a fatigued or sleepy condition after being awake for a continuous 18 hours. Plaintiff has sufficiently, and with much detail, alleged the many ways in which Dr. Black acted with malice and oppression by willfully disregarding her relevant training on many levels. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The present case is highly distinguishable from Austin v. Regents of Univ. of California (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 354, where the Court held, … the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are purely conclusory.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

At trial, plaintiff proved herself to be a poor historian who could not get her facts straight. She could not remember details of a slip-and-fall in a liquor store after the bus accident. She testified that she made no claim for the subsequent injury, but documents produced at trial proved that a claim was made against Hartford Insurance Company. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff exhibited a prominent limp during trial and used a cane at all times in the presence of the jury. She testified that she was unable to walk without a cane and that her limp was always present, in and out of the courtroom. However, four days of surveillance videotape of plaintiff taken immediately before trial began showed plaintiff walking without a limp and without a cane 3 of the 4 days. The only time plaintiff walked with a cane on the videotape was as she was coming out of her lawyer’s office on the day prior to trial.

The jury was interviewed post-verdict by both plaintiff and defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel asked a group of jurors why they ruled that plaintiff was not injured in the accident. One of the jurors responded, observation.”

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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

ARGUMENT
LEGAL STANDARD ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Motions to strike are not favored. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 7:197. The policy of California law is to construe the pleadings “liberally” … with a view to substantial justice. C.CP. § 452.

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint meets the notice pleading requirements under California law. What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. Perkins v. Superior Ct. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6. Specificity is not required in the Complaint “because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.” Ludgatelns. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal. App.4th 592, 608.

The First Amended Complaint adequately informs Dr. Black of the damages sought and the legal bases for those damages. Since Plaintiff has met the notice pleading requirements, Dr. Black’s motion to strike should fail on all accounts. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

PARAGRAPH 32 SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN SINCE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS ARE FACT-SPECIFIC AND ESTABLISH IN DETAIL HOW DR. BLACK ACTED WITH MALICE AND OPPRESSION

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Dr. Jones’s first report was written without benefit of review of medical records. In Dr. Jones’s second August 27, 2002 report, following his review of records, Dr. Jones notes plaintiff’s inconsistent and migrating symptoms as reported in records. He notes that records suggest multiple contusion type injuries during the accident. He also notes inconsistencies in the pain reported by plaintiff and plaintiff’s reported contact with the interior of the bus during the accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In Dr. Jones’s January 3, 2005, third and final report, following review of additional records, Dr. Jones notes that records reveal no anatomic basis for plaintiff’s back pain or leg pain. He further opines that Dr. Levine’s contrary opinions are unfounded and scientifically invalid. He notes that Dr. Cink agrees that plaintiff has no objective findings to support symptoms and states that Dr. Cink’s conclusions regarding disability are significantly weakened by the disproportionate symptoms and paucity or absence of objective findings. The disability rating that he opined seems excessive absent any identifiable objective findings.”

Continue Reading ›