(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this traumatic brain 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 the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.
In Hewitson, and similarly in Rives, the court concluded that the “trial court’s determination of the value of a particular asset [closely held corporation] is a factual one and, if there is substantial evidence to support it in the record, the determination must be upheld on appeal.” Hewitson, 142 Cal.App.3d at 885. The court continued its explanation by stating that if such determination is based solely or in large part on the opinion of an expert, the determination will not be upheld on appeal, unless the opinion satisfies the standard of admissibility set forth in Evidence Code section 801. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Rives (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 138, 149-151; cf.. Solis v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 382, 389-390). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The Hewitson court then goes on to explain that Evidence Code section 801, in dealing with the admissibility requirements of opinion testimony by an expert witness, provides in subdivision (b) thereof, three separate but related tests that a matter must meet to serve as a proper basis for an expert opinion. First, the information used must come from (a) the witness’ personal observation, or (b) the witness’ personal knowledge, or (c) an assumption of facts finding support in the evidence. Second, the matter about which the opinion is based must be of a type upon which the expert may reasonably rely. Third, an expert may not base his opinion upon any matter held to be improper as the basis of an expert opinion by constitutional, statutory, or decisional law. Id. (citing People v. Plasencia (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 853, 857).
Here, defendant has failed to establish by any means how the sub rosa videotape contradicts or somehow discredits the testimony of any of plaintiff’s experts based on any legal criteria. Defendants have not explained if or how these experts failed to rely on personal observation, personal knowledge, or an assumption of facts finding support in the evidence. Obviously, the sub rosa video was not the only evidence available to the jury, nor can an assumption be made that plaintiff’s experts’ opinions would have been altered in any way based on a video depicting activities Ms. White’s own family testified. that she on occasion was able to participated in and/or perform. Further, defendant’s reliance on two family law cases, related to asset value disputes is markedly distinguishable from a civil matter wherein medical experts base their opinions on examination of a plaintiff and provide an opinion based on their background, expertise and experience, as was the case here. Further, defendants have relied on court opinions regarding expert valuations of tangible assets, which is markedly divergent from the valuation of a person’s future needs of a medical nature, as explained. (See Part 10 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.