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 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 SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT ESTABLISH MALICE AND OPPRESSION ON THE PART OF DR. BLACK

Plaintiff specifically pled a variety of facts – not conclusions – supporting the allegations of malice and oppression against Dr. Black.

The following facts pertaining to Dr. Black’s conduct were pled, providing sufficient basis for punitive damages:

At said time and place, Defendant Olivia Black, M.D. was driving the subject vehicle east on Oak Street. Defendant Olivia Black, M.D. knowingly and intentionally got behind the wheel while fatigued, sleepy and in an impaired condition, fell asleep while driving and drove the subject vehicle east on Oak Street and up and onto the raised sidewalk and struck the pedestrian plaintiff from behind. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant Olivia Black, M.D., failed to use reasonable care while negligently, and also wantonly and recklessly with malice and oppression, knowingly and intentionally got behind the wheel while fatigued, sleepy and in an impaired condition, fell asleep while driving and drove the subject vehicle east on Oak Street and up and onto the raised sidewalk and struck the pedestrian plaintiff from behind.

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 testified that there were absolutely no objective findings of injury at the time of his medical examination. He testified that references in his medical reports to plaintiff having sustained a strain/sprain injury in the accident were based solely upon history provided by plaintiff and not independent findings. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In plaintiff’s moving papers, she cites Dr. Jones’s July 18, 2002 report where he notes, “Ms. Perry merely sustained mild sprain, strain and contusion type injuries” as evidence that plaintiff was injured. As noted above, Dr. Jones testified that the diagnosis relied upon by plaintiff was based upon the medical history provided by plaintiff and was not supported by any objective findings on examination. The quote from Dr. Jones’s report is essentially just Dr. Jones’s acknowledgment that plaintiff gave a history of contusion and sprain/strain type complaints.

The overwhelming opinion of Dr. Jones was that plaintiff suffers “a clearly factitious pain disorder.” “Factitious” is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “sham” produced by humans rather than by “natural forces”; or produced by special effort. Dr. Jones substantiates this opinion with numerous references in his initial report to plaintiff’s exaggerated examination responses and inconsistent and nonsensical behavior at examination. Specifically, Dr. Jones noted that plaintiff was waiving her trunk forward and backward while sitting on the edge of her chair during examination, but later, during examination of the low back, she moved the same parts of her body as though she were writhing in pain .

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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT SUPPORT PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

On June 16, 2007, shortly before 1:00 p.m., plaintiff, a pedestrian, was safely jogging on the eastern sidewalk of Oak Street, near the intersection of Main Street, in Sacramento. Dr. Black was driving east on Oak Street. Knowingly and intentionally driving in a fatigued and sleepy condition, Dr. Black fell asleep while driving and drove up and onto the raised sidewalk and struck plaintiff from behind. Plaintiff flew violently onto the hood and smashed into the windshield, then onto the roof. (Id.) Plaintiff was carried approximately 59 feet east before being thrown off the top of the vehicle. (Id.) Dr. Black, while still asleep, then dragged plaintiff approximately 38 feet where she ultimately ran over him. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Over the night of June 15-16, Dr. Black was working as a medical resident at Central Hospital in Sacramento, California, which is owned and operated by defendant Sacramento County Medical Center (“SCMC”). Plaintiff alleged that immediately prior to the incident, Dr. Black worked excessive hours, including, but not limited to, an overnight shift after inadequate sleep and without any rest. (Id. 15.)

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 also sufficiently alleged facts that established how Dr. Black acted with oppression by subjecting plaintiff to serious physical injuries in knowing disregard of his right to safety. (Id.) Given defendant’s training at Central Hospital, Dr. Black should have avoided driving home on June 16, 2007. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff’s allegations supporting his punitive damages claims are not irrelevant or conclusory. The allegations set forth actual facts regarding Dr. Black’s extensive training on how to acknowledge and avoid the dangerous conduct that gave rise to the present litigation. Facts establishing Dr. Black’s training on fatigue and sleep-deprivation are directly relevant here.

Further, Dr. Black’s decision to drive while impaired is no different than a person driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol with conscious disregard for the safety of others. Punitive damages are routinely pled in motor vehicle accident cases where the defendant was driving under the influence. See, e.g., Peterson v. Superior Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 147; Taylor v. Superior Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894. In fact, plaintiff is clearly entitled to plead punitive damages under statutory and common law rights controlling his causes of action. Those include: Civ. Code § 3294; Potter v. Firestone & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 985; Taylor, 24 Cal.3d at 894.

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.)

Photographs in evidence included pictures of the County Transit Authority Bus which plaintiff was operating at the time of the collision. Photographs revealed mere scraping damage to the left front corner and some damage to a protruding side view mirror. Repair estimates produced at trial revealed no structural damage to the bus.

Defendant called the owner of the van driven by defendant at trial. The owner testified that the only damage to the van was to the right side view mirror. He estimated damage at approximately $100. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendants also called Dr. Edward Stein, a physicist, to testify with regard to causation. Dr. Stein testified that the force of the collision between the delivery van and the 40-foot bus would have resulted in plaintiff merely feeling a “vibration” in her seat. He stated that a glass of water on the dashboard would not have spilled as a result of he impact. He further testified that the bus would have only rocked slightly as a result of contact between the vehicles.

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.)

FACTS

This case arises from an accident involving a bus, a van, and a pedestrian, which occurred on November 13, 2002. Trial of this matter commenced on March 26, 2005, the Honorable David Black presiding.

Evidence at trial established that the subject accident occurred when defendant Smith swerved in an attempt to avoid striking a pedestrian, defendant Tina Greene. As he swerved, the front right comer of defendant Smith’s van scraped against the front right corner of a city bus operated by plaintiff.

At trial, plaintiff claimed extensive personal injuries, including soft tissue injury to her neck and back, and wage loss commencing at the time of the subject accident and continuing to and ongoing at the time of trial. At trial, defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith denied liability, and asserted that the subject accident did not generate force sufficient to cause injury and that plaintiff sustained no injury as a result of the accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The jury found that Randy Smith was negligent but found that such negligence was not the cause of injury and damage to plaintiff.

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 Paul Wong’s Opposition to Defendant Olivia Black, M.D.’s, Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the First Amended Complaint
INTRODUCTION

On June 16, 2007, at approximately 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon, defendant Olivia Black, M.D., fell asleep while driving her car and struck plaintiff, Paul Wong, as he was jogging on the sidewalk. Dr. Black caused Mr. Wong to sustain serious and permanent injuries, including: traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, thoracic spine fractures, left fibula fracture, multiple lacerations, severe abrasions (road rash) from his upper back, arms, knees, thighs and toes, and contusions. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

As part of her training at Central Hospital, Dr. Black was taught about the dangerous probable consequences of operating a motor vehicle while sleepy, sleep-deprived, or fatigued. Despite the training, Dr. Black, who is to “do no harm” as a physician, left Central Hospital where she had been working and awake for at least 18 consecutive hours, and drove home in a sleepy and fatigued condition. She was significantly impaired and unable to drive anywhere safely.

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.)

Defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff presented claims for personal injury over the course of a six-day trial. During trial, evidence presented established that plaintiff was making exorbitant claims as a result of a minor scraping contact against the front right corner of a bus she was driving. Evidence further established that plaintiff has exaggerated and misrepresented claims and facts throughout this case. For example, the jury watched plaintiff limp in front of them with a cane for several days, and then saw videotape evidence of plaintiff walking freely and uninhibited without a cane taken just days before trial commenced. Based on all evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff suffered no injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Clearly frustrated at having been exposed for misrepresentation and deception, plaintiff now moves for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claiming that undisputed medical evidence establishes that she sustained an injury.

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff testified at trial that he currently has pain in the left hip/pelvis area which he rates as a 3 on a scale of 0-10. He did experience more acute flare ups 1-2 times a year since the car accident he has been released back to work and has returned to Dr. Black, who has sent him to physical therapy and taken him off work for a week or two. Dr. Black testified that he expected plaintiff would have on-going pain for 3-5 years following the accident however, because it was already 3.5 years after the accident, he would expect that plaintiff will have the on-going pain for another 1.5 years. The jury’s award for future medical expenses ($720) and future lost earnings ($4,250) were not substantial.

Based on the above evidence, the award of $190,000 for past pain and suffering and $80,000 for future pain and suffering was excessive and not based on the evidence presented at trial. A new trial should be granted.

In the Alternative, The Court Should Remit The Award.

As noted above. Code of Civil Procedure section 662.5(b) sets forth the procedure whereby the court may deny a motion for a new trial conditioned upon acceptance of a reduction of the award. In general, the trial judge has discretion to grant a new trial or the grounds of excessive damages, and it is the court’s duty to grant such a new trial or provide for a reduction of a verdict if, under the circumstances, it believes the jury’s award is excessive. (Bazzoli v. Nance’s Sanitarium, inc. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 232.) 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 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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL DISCUSSION

THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO SET ASIDE AN EXCESSIVE VERDICT UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

A New Trial Should Be Granted Because The Award for Past and Future Pain and Suffering by the Jury Was Unsupported by the Evidence. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Court has authority and the power in this case to reweigh the evidence independently from that of the jury to determine whether the past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering award was excessive.

Defendant maintains that the amounts award by the jury for past and future noneconomic damages is simply unsupported by the evidence. To that end, the evidence at trial demonstrated that plaintiff suffered only soft tissue injuries. Plaintiff testified at trial that plaintiff’s CT scans and x-rays taken at the hospital following the car accident were all negative.

None of plaintiff’s doctors testified at trial that plaintiff required surgery or that he would require surgery in the future. Plaintiff’s past medical bills were only $15,221 and there was no evidence presented at trial to suggest that plaintiff suffered enduring, severe injuries or pain as a result of the accident.

Continue Reading ›