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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement of Defendant Dina White
STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case arises out of a red light/green light dispute that occurred at the intersection of University Avenue and Green Street in Sacramento, CA, on January 22, 2006. Defendant, Dina White, was traveling in a 2002 Audi Quattro and came to a stop at University Avenue to make a left hand turn. When the left hand turn signal changed to green (an arrow), defendant proceeded to turn left. Plaintiff, Michael Owen, was traveling in a 1998 BMW 528i, eastbound on University Avenue and drove through the intersection on a red light. The passenger side fender and hood of defendant’s Audi came into contact with driver’s side front fender of plaintiff’s BMW.

Besides these two drivers, there are no witnesses to this accident. There is no police report in connection with this case. Both vehicles were declared a total loss as a result of this accident.

LIABILITY

Plaintiff is at fault for causing this accident by illegally running a red light.

INJURIES AND TREATMENT
On February 8, 2006, plaintiff presented to Kate Brown, D.C. to establish care. According to Dr. Brown’s initial exam report, plaintiff stated that he was involved in the accident when a Audi ran a red light and hit his automobile.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Although Mr. Owen acknowledges the need for surgery, his personal obligations due to his wife’s medical condition preclude him from pursuing a surgical option at this time.

In the absence of surgery, Mr. Owen is left with constant pain, numbness in his hands and fingers, and reduced range of cervical motion. This has not only reduced his ability to drive, but also his enjoyment of it. Where before the accident, he used to walk five miles each day, now, he can do a mile at most, with frequent breaks, and the attendant pain. Social activities as simple as hosting a barbecue for family and friends is now out of the question.

MEDICAL SPECIAL DAMAGES
Key Health (MRI) $1,695.00
Dr. Kate Brown D.C. $514.13
Dr. Messi M.D. $750.00
MEDICAL SPECIALS TO DATE $2,959.13
FUTURE MEDICAL SPECIALS
Two Level Cervical Fusion $80,000.00
WAGE LOSS
At the time of the accident Mr. Owen was self-employed by World Limousine Service as a driver. In that position, Mr. Owen earned $50.00 per hour, or $72,000.00 per year. As a result of the injuries which he sustained in the subject motor vehicle accident, Ms. Owen missed the eight weeks immediately after the accident. This wage loss alone is $12,000.00.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

An MRI was taken of Mr. Owen’s cervical spine on February 21, 2006, at the Sacramento Imaging Center. This scan was interpreted as revealing:

1. Mild to moderate anterior extradural impressions at the C4-5 and C5-6 levels. At the C4-5 level this is due to a small central disc protrusion and at the C5-6 level, it appears due to a moderate broad based disc osteophyte;
2. Right sided foramina 1 narrowing at the C5-6 level due to bony hypertrophic changes;

3. The cord has a generally flattened appearance throughout the cervical spine and the AP diameter of the canal, even where the discs appear normal, is less than 9 millimeters.

Dr. Brown immediately referred Mr. Owen to Dr. Lee Messi for neuro-surgical consultation. Dr. Messi summarized his findings in a letter of July 6, 2006. Dr. Messi noted that Mr. Owen was then experiencing posterior neck pain with radiation into his right upper extremity. On examination, Dr. Messi noted weakness in Mr. Owen’s biceps and triceps muscles upon dorsiflexion of the right hand, with decreased bicipital reflex on the right when compared to the left. Dr. Messi noted that Mr. Owen’s cervical range of motion was restricted to 60% of normal. Dr. Messi reviewed the MRI scan and noted significant disc abnormalities at both C4-5 and C5-6. Dr. Messi concluded that Mr. Owen’s symptoms were consistent with radiation from a C5-6 disc abnormality.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

At deposition, Defendant also remembered telling the police what lane she was in. However, Mr. Owen distinctly remembers hearing Defendant tell the investigating officer at the scene that she had turned left “from the second lane,” which would be a lane for through traffic. Mr. Owen remembers the officer repeating the question two or three times, and getting the same response each time.

Defendant has the burden of proof with respect to her allegations and her Affirmative Defenses, and Defendant’s recall of events during her deposition make it impossible for her to prove: 1) that Plaintiff did anything whatsoever to cause the accident and/or 2) that she was proceeding cautiously in making her ill fated attempt at a left turn across oncoming traffic.

The accident was clearly caused by the negligence of Ms. White in either of two ways:

1. She jumped the red arrow for the left turn and attempted to squeeze between the gap in oncoming traffic in front of Mr. Owen.

2. She made the turn from the lane next to the left turn lane, having the green and seeing that same gap in traffic.

Ms. White therefore either ran the red arrow or made an illegal left turn. In either case she failed to lawfully yield to oncoming traffic in the intersection. Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the accident was caused by Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable and due care while making a left turn. Failing to make certain that the intersection was clear before turning left it was the negligence of Defendant in either version.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

California Vehicle Code §21801 states in relevant part:

(a) The 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.

Even in the unlikely event that the traffic signal for Plaintiff had changed from green to yellow and then to red after Mr. Owen had entered the intersection, Defendant would still be entirely responsible for the collision and injuries. Vehicle Code §21451 states in relevant part:

(a) Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

The finder of fact is likely to conclude that Mr. Owen entered the intersection lawfully, and at a reasonable speed. And that Defendant, either turning from a non-turning lane or from the left turn pocket, saw a gap in traffic created by Mr. Owen maintaining a reasonable following distance behind the vehicle in front of him, made an ill fated attempt to squeeze through this gap.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement of Plaintiff Michael Owen
FACTS

This matter arises from negligence of Defendant Dina White in causing an automobile accident on January 22, 2006, at the intersection of University Avenue and Green Street in the City and County of Sacramento. Plaintiff Michael Owen was the restrained driver of a 1998 B.M.W. 528i proceeding eastbound on University Avenue. He was in the process of crossing the intersection of Green on the green light. He was free of any back and neck pain.

Defendant Dina White had been proceeding westbound on University Avenue in her 2004 Audi Quattro, and made a sudden left turn, directly into the path of Mr. Owen’s vehicle. Ms. White said that she was proceeding slowly. Mr. Owen said that she was flying in such a manner that Mr. Owen was unable to avoid the inevitable impact.

Mr. Owen, now 58, is a former commercial airline pilot, and is now a limousine driver. In this accident he sustained neck and back injuries that can only be alleviated by surgery. Mr. Owen has also lost income because the constant pain from the accident injury makes it impossible to drive as many hours as he did before the accident, or to lift heavy luggage in and out of the vehicle.

Continue Reading ›

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

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.

WAGE LOSS CLAIM

Plaintiff was employed as a sales associate for Macy’s at the time the car accident occurred. She was also a student at Community College.

Plaintiff testified that her income at Macy’s decreased after the accident because she worked fewer hours and could not remain on her feet as long as she used to before the accident. She would have to take breaks because of her back pain.

Plaintiff had started working for Macy’s in 2004. According to a Mortgage Verification Form provided by Macy’s, the plaintiff earned the following during the four years she was employed at Macy’s:

Year Amount
2004 $ 4,117.51
2005 $ 23,221.43
2005 $ 20,557.65
2007 $ 2,707.19

Plaintiff testified that that she does not know how many days she actually may have missed from Macy’s.

Subpoenas of Macy’s records pertaining to the plaintiff have not revealed any specific attendance records.

Plaintiff testified that she stopped working for Macy’s and resigned from her position because she felt she could no longer do the job because of her injuries.

Continue Reading ›

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

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.

On November 5, 2007, plaintiff returned to Dr. Wong. She reported she was doing yoga and stretches and had a personal trainer. She had stopped chiropractic treatment. She had never tried Pilates. She reported her symptoms would increase with stress. Exam revealed her scoliosis. She was tender to palpation in the lumbosacral area. Assessment was chronic low back pain with scoliosis and mild degenerative disc disease. She was advised to decrease stress. Core exercises were given.

On January 17, 2008, she was seen by Dr. Wong. She reported she still had back pain. She apparently was not doing chiropractic. She had done back exercises for a time. Assessment was lumbosacral strain/low back pain which was chronic.

Given the nature and the impact involved in this collision and also given the absolute lack of any medical treatment between February 9, 2005 and June 8, 2005, defendants contend that the only reasonable medical treatment related to this very minor auto accident would be the following:

Provider Dates Billed Paid
Doctors Valley Medical Group 2/9/06 1 treatment $ 95.00

Continue Reading ›

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

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.

On September 19, 2007, she returned to Dr. Wong. It was now over one year post-accident. She was still having chronic back issues. She was seeing a chiropractor but there was no relief. She was having pain in her legs and it felt like she walked with a limp. She would get tired easily. She was going to school full-time. She appeared to have trigger points in her neck and lumbosacral area. Assessment was chronic lumbosacral strain/pain with stress at home and she was referred for an MRI scan.

On September 25, 2007, plaintiff received an MRI scan of her lumbar spine. Impression was mild multilevel lumbar spondylosis. She had a broadbased central disc protrusion of 3mm at L5-S1. She had a disc bulge of 2-3 mm at L4-5 in combination with degenerative changes and a lateral disc bulge of 2 mm at L3-4. Finally, she had mild dextroscoliosis of the lumbar spine.

On October 11, 2007, plaintiff received an orthopedic evaluation from James White, M.D. of the California Spine Institute. She reported the car accident. She reported driving a BMW 325c and going over a speed bump when she was rear-ended by a Toyota 4-wheel drive traveling 25-30 miles per hour (this is plainly an exaggeration).

Continue Reading ›

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

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.

Plaintiff next sought physical therapy treatment from NeuroActivity Rehab of Roseville. She received an initial evaluation on June 14, 2005 and continued to receive treatment through September 15, 2005, for a total of five treatment sessions.

A June 14, 2005, NeuroActivity Patient Intake Form indicates diagnosis was scoliosis and DOI: 2 weeks.

The NeuroActivity treatment notes document that between the initial evaluation of 6/14/06 and final treatment note of 9/27/06, there were six “no shows” and one cancellation by the plaintiff.

The NeuroActivity June 14, 2005 evaluation indicates diagnosis was scoliosis/lumbosacral strain. Plaintiff reported the 2/7/06 motor vehicle accident. She said three days later she felt low back pain which had gone away and then came back one month later. She had not had any x-rays. It was noted she worked in customer service at Macy’s. She would have pain while lying on her back. She was to start next week at Community. Assessment was lumbar-hip dysfunction with tight muscles.

Continue Reading ›