Articles Posted in Motorcycle Accident

(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.)

Mr. White testified in deposition that he had not been in any prior motorcycle accident. (Jones Dec, Exh. 6 at p. 15.) Here, not only is the existence of a possible prior motorcycle accident irrelevant, but plaintiff was not in a prior motorcycle accident. Indeed, Mr. White avoided an accident by spilling off his bike before a car accident occurred. Id., Exh. 3. Thus, it is not impeachment to begin with. Plaintiff need not go to such lengths to address an irrelevant matter.

Independently, Dr. Brown alleges that Plaintiff denied prior motor vehicle accidents in his examination. Id., Exh. 5 at p. 3, 23. What potentially matters to Dr. Brown is the existence of the accidents, which he knows about, not Plaintiff’s alleged denials of the accidents. Dr. Brown is a medical expert, not a character witness. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Moreover, nobody’s statements during the examination were under oath or recorded by a court recorder. Thus, it is nearly impossible to prove the falsity of Dr. Brown’s statement. In fact, to try and disprove Dr. Brown’s statements, Plaintiff would be forced to call, among others, his counsel, who attended the examination. If Dr. Brown is allowed to testify as to these alleged denials, a defense medical examiner could literally say anything about conversations with a Plaintiff without fear of reprisal. That is not the law in California.

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 case and its proceedings.)

Here, none of the prior accidents involved his left knee or nerve damage to his right arm and shoulder, as alleged in this action. Further, the closest prior accident was over two years before the present accident and, thus, remote. Moreover, none of Defendants’ experts opine that the prior accidents were a substantial factor in causing his accident injuries. Accordingly, as set forth in Downing, evidence of Mr. White’s prior motor vehicle incidents would be irrelevant and certainly be more prejudicial than probative. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

DEFENDANTS CANNOT IMPEACH PLAINTIFF ON AN IRRELEVANT, COLLATERAL MATTER
As also set forth in Downing, defendants cannot attempt to impeach Mr. White’s testimony regarding prior motor vehicle incidents as the matters are irrelevant and, therefore, collateral. A party may not cross-examine a witness upon collateral matters for the purpose of eliciting something to be contradicted … This is especially so where the matter the party seeks to elicit would be inadmissible were it not for the fortuitous circumstance that the witness lied in response to the party’s questions. People v. Lavergne (1971) 4 C3d 735, 742; Winfred D. v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1030, 1034. Moreover, the Court can disallow such alleged impeachment due to the impeachment’s probative value being substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect or its undue consumption of time. Ev.C. § 352; Lavergne, 4 Cal.3d at 742. (See Part 5 of 5.)

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 case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE OF MR. WHITE’S PRIOR MOTOR VEHICLE INCIDENTS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS IRRELEVANT
Evidence of Mr. White’s prior motor-vehicle incidents is inadmissible as they are irrelevant. The general rule regarding inadmissibility of plaintiff’s prior accidents was discussed in Downing v. Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 519, 525 when the Court stated:

Generally, evidence that a litigant was involved in a prior accident is inadmissible when its only purported relevance is to show a propensity for negligent acts, thus enhancing the probability of negligence on the occasion in suit. (Prichard v. Veterans Cab. Co., 63 Cal.2d 727 [47 Cal.Rptr. 904, 408 P.2d 360]; Travis v. Southern Pacific Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 410 [26 Cal.Rptr. 700]; George v. Kleinbrodt, 206 Cal.App.2d 224 [23 Cal.Rptr. 822]; Shmatovich v. New Sonoma Creamery, 187 Cal.App.2d 342 [9 Cal.Rptr. 630]; 1 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 199; McCormick on Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 189; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) § 350.)

The policy basis of this prohibitory rule rests on the fact that the probative force of this kind of evidence is too slight to overbear the dangers of prejudice, distraction by side issues, and unfair surprise (Wigmore, op. cit.). (8) While evidence of a prior accident is admissible to show that a present physical condition has a cause antecedent to the accident being litigated (Johnson v. Matson Navigation Co., 163 Cal.App.2d 336 [329 P.2d 375]; Browning v. King, supra, 159 Cal.App.2d 326), here there was no reason to admit such evidence; it had no probative value as plaintiff was not claiming kidney damage as a result of this accident. 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 car accident case and its proceedings.)

As a result of the Incident, Mr. White suffered from and continues to suffer from various injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, nerve damage down his right shoulder and arm, a partially torn left anterior cruciate ligament, and ongoing meniscus damage in his left knee. (The meniscus is a crescent-shaped cartilage pad between the two joints formed by the femur (the thigh bone) and the tibia (the shin bone).)

Plaintiff already underwent one surgery on his left knee due to his injuries, and his treating orthopedic surgeon opines that Eli, at a minimum, will need ongoing, lifetime care for his knee, will suffer from early onset arthritis, and will need a total knee replacement in his lifetime. Moreover, the nerve damage in his right shoulder and arm is permanent. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Before this Incident, Mr. White was involved in three minor motor vehicle incidents. On or around August 11, 1998, Mr. White ran over a tire in his car. He was seen at University Hospital and diagnosed with a neck and back sprain. (See Declaration of Paul Jones.) On November 14, 2001, Mr. White was rear-ended in his car and felt pain to his left shoulder and lower back. (Jones Decl.) On July 24, 2005, to avoid an accident with a motor vehicle. Mr. White slid off his motorcycle and cut his right hand and bruised his right knee. Id. None of these accidents injured his left knee and/or right arm and shoulder, which are the body parts and injuries at issue in this action.

On May 5, 2009, Mr. White underwent a defense medical examination by Defendants’ expert, Michael Brown, M.D. In his report, Dr. Brown claims that Plaintiff “denies any previous motor vehicle accidents.” Id., Exh. 5 at p. 3, 23.

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 case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Eli White’s Motion in Limine No. 1: To Exclude Evidence of Prior Accidents
INTRODUCTION

Defendants may attempt to introduce evidence or testimony that Plaintiff Eli White was in motor vehicle/motorcycle accidents before the at-issue accident on November 18, 2008. Such evidence should be excluded because California authority holds that evidence of plaintiffs’ prior accidents is inadmissible, generally, and certainly when none of the prior accidents involved the type of injuries at issue in the action. Moreover, impeachment regarding irrelevant and inadmissible prior accidents is improper. As that is precisely the case at present, there should be no evidence or argument regarding any motor vehicle incident Plaintiff was involved in previously. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case involves a November 18, 2008, motor-vehicle incident at a four-way intersection at Broadway and 19th Street in Sacramento, California (the “Incident”).

Defendant Lee, heading east on Broadway, approached the intersection facing a stale red light yet blew through the light and into a busy intersection at 25 miles per hour. As he entered the intersection, Plaintiff Eli White, lawfully traveling south on 19th Street on a green light, slammed into the left side of Defendant Lee’s automobile in the intersection. Upon impact, Mr. White vaulted over his motorcycle, landed on the hood, and rolled down onto the street. (See Part 2 of 5.)

Continue Reading ›

(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.)

The assessment of damages is primarily the province of jury and secondarily the province of trial court when passing upon a motion for new trial. Gersick v. Shilling (1950) 218 P.2d 583, 97 Cal.App.2d 641; Music v. Southern Pac. Co. (1949) 204 P.2d 422, 91 Cal.App.2d 93. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Trial court may not grant new trial merely because verdict seems large or because it is larger than court sitting as jury would have given, but only when it appears that verdict was given under influence of passion or prejudice. Casaretto v. DeLucchi (1946) 174 P.2d 328, 76 Cal.App.2d 800; Kent v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp. (1939) 84 P.2d 1057, 29 Cal.App.2d 435; Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Abbot (1938) 76 P.2d 188, 24 Cal.App.2d 728; Bonner v. Los Angeles Examiner (1936) 62 P.2d 427, 17 Cal.App.2d 458; Hellman v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp. (1934) 27 P.2d 946, 135 Cal.App. 627, rehearing denied 28 P.2d 384, 135 Cal.App. 627.

In actions sounding in damages, where the law furnishes no rule of measurement, save the discretion of the jury upon the evidence before them, courts will not disturb a verdict upon the ground of excessive damages, unless it is so flagrantly improper as to evince passion, prejudice, partiality, corruption, or misapprehension. Wheaton v. North Beach & M.R. Co. (1869) 36 Cal. 590; Boyce v. California Stage Co. (1864) 25 Cal. 460; Aldrich v. Palmer (1864) 24 Cal. 513.

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.)

Mr. Greene testified regarding the impact of these injuries upon his life. He was unable to return to his employment for several months and continues to suffer flare-ups which cause him to miss additional days of work. He testified that he suffered many embarrassing and humiliating events where he was physically unable to stand, sit or even walk and that, on many occasions, he was entirely dependent upon his family, sometimes his children, for physical and medical support. These events caused Mr. Greene significant anxiety as he was removed from his usual and customary role of the provider and guardian of his family.

Mr. Greene’s testimony regarding several events where his children were required physically to care for him illustrated the full extent of the damages which were inflicted by the defendant’s collision with his motorcycle.

The damages awarded by the jury were not excessive. Mr. Greene was the victim of a severe motor vehicle collision which was the result of the sole and unquestioned negligence of Ms. Hall. The trauma in this collision was so severe that Mr. Greene suffered a bone bruise and microfractures in the collision in addition to the damage to the overlaying tissue. These injuries were severe and, in several respects, permanent. Although, the defendants have argued that the injury was merely a soft tissue injury, the only medical testimony presented at the trial confirmed that the injuries were severe and permanent. The jury’s verdict was not excessive in any respect. 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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

These objective findings confirmed three facts: 1) that there was significant, permanent and painful damage to Mr. Greene’s left testicle; 2) that this damage was the result of the trauma in the June 12, 2004 collision between the defendant’s vehicle and Mr. Greene’s motorcycle; and 3) that the injury was permanent. This testimony was uncontradicted.

The defendant complains Mr. Greene’s injuries as “only soft tissue injuries” which do not warrant reasonable compensation. The complaints of the defendant are directly in conflict with the uncontroverted testimony of the only medical witnesses who were called to testify at the trial. Dr. Black concluded that Mr. Greene sustained multiple injuries, including a pelvic bone bruise and micro-fractures – these are not mere soft tissue injuries. These injuries are the result of damages to Mr. Greene’s pelvic bone and are long-lasting.

Dr. Black testified that Mr. Greene will experience significant pain, swelling, stiffness and flare-ups from these injuries for three to four more years – until 2011 or 2012. Simple math shows that these injuries will have a duration of at least seven or eight years. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Dr. O’Callahan testified that Mr. Greene sustained a permanent, painful and extremely personal injury. Mr. Greene’s left testicle was damaged and, as of 2008, had lost 50% of its mass. Mr. Greene testified that many of the personal and intimate details of his life now were painful. He was unable to have sexual relations with his wife, Kim Greene, for three months, and the sexual relationship with his wife continued to suffer since the car collision.

Continue Reading ›

(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.)

Dr. Black testified that Mr. Greene had experienced three-and-one-half years of significant pain, measured as a three to four on a scale of ten, and would more likely than not continue to experience this pain for another three to four years. While the defendant has argued that Dr. Black testified that the pain would typically resolve in three to five years, in the case of Mr. Greene Dr. Black opined that the pain would continue for another three to four years. Mr. Greene would experience daily pain with stiffness and flare-ups of extreme pain.

Dr. Black testified that Mr. Greene would lose eight to nine days of employment per year for the next three to four years. Dr. Black concluded that this was a “very serious injury.” The testimony of Dr. Black was uncontradicted at trial. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Dr. Kieran O’Callahan, a board certified radiologist, testified regarding extent of injury to Mr. Greene’s testicle and that injury was permanent. Dr. O’Callahan reviewed CT scans, performed in July of 2004 and in August of 2008, of Mr. Greene’s testicles. The first test revealed that the Mr. Greene’s left (injured) testicle was 30% smaller than the right testicle. Dr. O’Callahan testified that this discrepancy in size may have been either congenital or the result of recent trauma.

Continue Reading ›

(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 opposes the Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, Motion for Remittitur, as the evidence presented at the trial justified and supported the award of non-economic damages by the jury. This court should not disturb the unanimous verdict of the jury which clearly was the result of careful deliberation and not the result of either sympathy or prejudice. As the verdict of the jury was supported by the evidence presented at trail, the motion of the defendant should be denied. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Verdict of the Jury Was Supported by the Evidence.

Significant and substantial evidence was presented regarding the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Sean Greene. Virginia Hall testified that she turned her vehicle into the path of Mr. Greene’s motorcycle, collided with the motorcycle, and caused Mr. Greene to be propelled from the motorcycle and onto the pavement. Mr. Greene testified that the collision with the defendant’s car caused him to flip off of his motorcycle, rotate in the air, and land on his shoulders. After his shoulders struck the pavement, Mr. Greene testified that his hips and legs slammed into the pavement, inflicting serious and significant injury. This testimony was uncontradicted.

The collision was witnessed by Thomas Smith who was standing on the corner and facing the intersection when Ms. Hall turned into the path of Mr. Greene. He testified that there was a significant collision and that Mr. Greene appeared to have been injured. Mr. Smith testified that Mr. Greene was not able to stand immediately after being slamming against the pavement. Mr. Greene crawled on the ground for a few moments and then walked to the curb. Mr. Smith testified that Mr. Greene lay on the curb until emergency medical services arrived. Mr. Smith observed that Mr. Greene received medial attention immediately and was transported to University Hospital.

Continue Reading ›