The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
INJURIES: Gregory claimed injuries to her neck, as well as persistent headaches. She claimed that she sustained three 2mm cervical disc bulges. She testified that she evaluated her pain level at an 8 or 9 at the scene of the accident.
Facts:
On Sept. 3, 2004, plaintiff Jackie Gonzales, 19, was traveling southbound in her sports car in Placerville when she struck a sedan traveling westbound driven by Jasmine Kiniky.
Gregory sued Kiniky, and the owner of the car she was driving, Jermaine Kiniky, claiming motor vehicle negligence.
The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that Gregory merged over to the left as the signs mandated, and she was traveling in the number two lane southbound when the accident occurred. Gregory denied there was any stopped traffic prior to the accident.
Kiniky offered the testimony of her passenger, a co-worker who stated that there were two lanes of stopped traffic. Kiniky inched up between lanes of traffic, and Gregory struck her car.
Gregory sought treatment one week after the accident with orthopedist Steven Goll. Goll took X-rays of Gregory’ neck on Sept. 10, 2004 which was in normal limits. Gregory was then referred for an MRI which revealed disc dissection at C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6 and 2mm diffuse annular posterior disc bulges.
Goll recommended physical therapy. Gregory stated that the therapy resulted in no improvement. She then began a course of treatment with chiropractor Gennie Tamin. Tamin’ treatment did not offer any relief to Gregory either.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Defendants contested the wrongful death claim as to the parents, and the jury ultimately determined that they were not financially dependent and rejected their wrongful death claim. On the wrongful death claim for the family members, there was a claim for loss of support and loss of household services based upon the industrious nature of decedent. Additionally, there was a claim for loss of financial support in terms of loss of medical insurance benefits. The claim for economic damages was approximately $3 million. Defendants contested the nature and extent of the economic losses, and, through their expert, claimed that the economic losses, once the present cash value analysis by their expert was applied, would result in economic losses of about $1.2 million.
CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to Plaintiff: $3 million economic damages.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
According to Plaintiff: The matter went through multiple mediations and settlement conferences. Defendant ABC Group, which was insured by XYZ, refused to acknowledge that it had a higher percentage of responsibility than defendant ABC Produce. This insurer insisted on a 50/50 split on any type of allocation, and, therefore, offers being made to plaintiffs. All defendants contested the wrongful death claim of the parents. Plaintiffs filed a statutory demand on the wrongful death case in the amount of $9.9 million as to ABC Group in response to the settlement position taken by defendants. The last settlement offer made by ABC Produce was $750,000. The initial offer made by ABC Group was $1 million and ultimately was increased to $2 million, but that was the last offer ever made by ABC Group. As a result, the statutory demand was made. As to plaintiff Barron Yemming, defendants made a combined offer of $125,000. In response to that, da statutory demand was made as to ABC Group in the amount of $250,000 and as to ABC Produce for $125,000. Both statutory demands were exceeded.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
INJURIES: Surrie had a corpectomy procedure in May 2004 at C6 for a disc herniation at C6-7. She denied any previous cervical symptoms or treatment prior to the accident.
Facts:
On Oct. 31, 2003, Casey Surrie, the plaintiff, 46, was in the course and scope of her employment as a paratransit driver, driving a 2001 Ford Crown Victoria sedan. She was stopped at an intersection in Folsom, when her vehicle was hit from behind by a 1991 Ford Escort station wagon driven by the Samantha Lemons, who was in the course and scope of her employment with Sacramento Farm. Lemons was driving at 10 to 15 miles per hour at the time of impact.
Surrie sued Lemons and Sacramento Farm for negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Lemons admitted liability for the accident, but contested causation.
Surrie’s passenger was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Surrie herself declined treatment at the scene.
A neurosurgeon testifying for Surrie contended that her cervical condition and resulting treatment were caused by the car accident. He also claimed that she would require future surgery to address adjacent vertebral segments, which would be weakened by the fused levels addressed in the first surgery.
The neurosurgeon who performed the corpectomy testified that Surrie suffered from degenerative changes to the cervical spine and that, even without the accident, she might have required surgery. He contended that surgery was necessary due to Surrie’s right side symptoms. Taller further claimed that a rear-end impact like the one Surrie suffered would not result in structural damage to the cervical spine.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Defendant Merryweather then moved over as far as he could in the right lane toward the center line in an effort to give decedent and the bus as much room as possible.
Defendant Carreon said he never observed this movement or any other type of warning from Merryweather. The two vehicles contacted each other, with the tractor of the ABC Group truck coming into contact with the rear trailer of the ABC Produce vehicle. This caused the two vehicles to become entangled, with the rear trailer swinging out to the right and striking the bus and decedent, killing him instantly.
Plaintiff Barrom Yemming was on the bus at the time of the impact, knew that his uncle was down on the driver’s side and believed he saw him flying through the air. Defendant Carreon made a statement at the scene that for some reason he moved his vehicle to the right and that precipitated the contact. He denied making that statement to the CHP officer at his deposition and during trial.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs alleged the tiger had frightened the Surelys’ horse, causing it to run out into the road and collide with decedent’s car. Plaintiffs further alleged that the Camerons were negligent in renting their mobile home to a couple with over 20 wild cats, without having obtained a required conditional use permit from the County, without having run a thorough background check on the renters, and without having insisted that the renters install adequate facilities for housing the animals. It was learned that, prior to the accident, a lynx had also escaped from the property. An inspection by the Fish & Game Department found numerous code violations with regard to how the animals were being housed.
The Surelys argued that it was the tiger that frightened the horse which resulted in the accident.
The Camerons argued that there was no evidence connecting the tiger to the escape of the horse. No witnesses observed the tiger in the vicinity of the Surelys’ property around the time of the accident. The Camerons’ animal tracking expert inspected the paw print on the Surelys’ fence post and concluded that it was from a large dog. A Fish & Game warden inspected the post and concluded that it was from a large cat, but that it appeared to be smaller than the paw of the tiger that had escaped.
There was an issue as to the Camerons’ insurance coverage. Their carrier defended the case under a reservation of rights, and the Camerons filed a cross-complaint against their insurance broker, cross-defendant Brian Deven of cross-defendant Deven Group. The Camerons claimed the broker negligently failed to obtain umbrella coverage and a policy covering the mobile home.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: On April 17, 2009, decedent Jason Hamm was the operator of a Church bus that ran out of gas and was disabled on the side of southbound Highway 99 between Merced and Fresno, California. The bus was returning from a trip to San Francisco. On the bus were approximately 40 individuals who had made the trip from the church, including plaintiff Barron Yemming, the 17-year-old nephew of decedent. The bus did not have an operating gas gauge, and once it ran out of gas, decedent pulled the bus over to the shoulder area. Diesel fuel was obtained and was put into the vehicle, and decedent was on the driver’s side of the bus priming the diesel engine to get it started. The bus had been on the side of the road for approximately 30 minutes at this point. Decedent was next to the driver’s side of the vehicle for between 5 and 10 minutes.
Defendant Mark Merryweather, employee and operator of a tractor-trailer vehicle owned and operated by defendant ABC Produce, was southbound on Highway 99 traveling 55 mph. He observed the disabled bus and decedent working on the side of the bus and intended to move from the right lane to the passing lane. He looked in his rear-view mirror and observed defendant Reggie Carreon, the driver of a tractor-trailer rig operated by defendant ABC Group, in the passing lane starting a passing maneuver of his last trailer.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: Decedent Sam Leonard, a 48-year-old real estate agent, was driving along Folsom Road in Sacramento in the early morning hours of February 12, 2005, when a horse ran on to the road and collided with Leonard’s vehicle. Leonard and the horse were killed instantly. Plaintiffs, decedent’s 46-year-old wife, 22-year-old son, and 19-year-old son alleged the corral, owned by defendants Max and Karen Surely, in which the horse was kept, was built of inadequate materials and was dilapidated. The dilapidated fence allowed for the horse to easily break through the fence and escape.
Defendants argued that their fence was adequate, given that their horses had never attempted to escape from the property before.
During the course of discovery and investigation, it was learned that a large Siberian tiger had escaped from a wild animal sanctuary and was roaming through Sacramento County at the time of the accident. The tiger and its tracks were observed at various locations in Folsom and El Dorado Hills, both east and west of the Surelys’ property, and both before and after the accident. An animal print was also found on a fence post on the Surelys’ corral. Due to heavy rains at the time, no other animal prints were found.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this motorcycle accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On July 21, 2007, at 10:40 a.m., plaintiff Larry Burt was operating his motorcycle west on California Road, east of Placerville in an unincorporated section of Placer County, California.
Defendant Wallas Tames, a resident of California, drove a pickup truck with a trailer east on California Road and collided with plaintiff’s motorcycle. Defendant said he crossed over the center line in a curve and sideswiped plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleged defendant was negligent.
Defendant conceded liability and defendant would not argue comparative fault.
CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:
Leg fracture; degloving injury to knee; knee replacement surgery.
CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to court records:
$50,000 past medical; $25,000 to $50,000 future medical.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
INJURIES: Benjamin claimed to suffer soft-tissue strain to her neck and back and a torn rotator cuff. She testified that she recovered from the neck and back sprains within three months of the accident and later had surgery to repair her torn rotator cuff.
Facts:
On May 2, 2004, plaintiff Frances Benjamin, 61, a care provider to disabled adults, was driving her Jeep north in the left lane in Sacramento when she was sideswiped by Mary Pensis, who was driving a sedan. Benjamin claimed that she hurt her neck, back and shoulder in the accident.
Benjamin sued Pensis for vehicular negligence. Benjamin also sued Jane Avery, a co-owner of the sedan, but Avery was dismissed as there was no issue of permissive use or negligent entrustment.
Pensis admitted liability, explaining that as she was trying to change into the left lane she had a sneezing attack, causing her to lose control of her car and sideswipe the Benjamin’s vehicle.
Pensis admitted liability for the accident.
Benjamin claimed that she missed six months of work due to her injuries. She testified that she made about $1,600 a month as a caregiver.
Benjamin claimed that she incurred $23,900 in medical expenses, including $11,000 for the rotator cuff surgery, and $9,600 in lost wages. Including damages for pain and suffering, she sought a total of about $133,000.
In addition, Benjamin’s husband sought $25,000 for loss of consortium. He testified that he had to do the cooking and cleaning and help his wife with bathing and the toilet for at least six months, including three months after the surgery.
SUMMARY:
RESULT: Verdict-Plaintiff
Award Total: $11,840
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $11,840, but found in favor of the defense on her husband’s loss of consortium claim.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Personal Injury Lawyer Blog