Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. 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 also 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.)
THE EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT
The evidence in this case is overwhelming that the plaintiff, Alice Hall, did in fact suffer an injury as a result of this accident.
In that regard, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of the traffic collision report which was reviewed and referred to by Mr. Berg and Dr. Wagner. On page 3 of 5 the report indicates that there is a complaint of pain to the low back of Ms. Hall as a result of this accident.
Additionally, marked as Exhibit 179 for identification in the trial was the emergency room record concerning Ms. Hall’s admission to Kaiser. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiff, Alice Hall, testified that following this accident she was transported by her husband to the urgent care facility of Kaiser. Upon admission to the urgent care it was determined that she should be transferred immediately, according to her testimony, to the emergency room.
Exhibit 179 for identification, which is marked as Exhibit B and attached hereto clearly indicates that at the time of her admission on the date of this accident, March 5, 2005, Ms. Hall did complain of low back pain. In fact, Exhibit 179 shows that not only radiology was performed on her low back, but she was administered morphine as a result of the pain which she incurred.
Prior to her release Exhibit 179 also shows that she was given a four (4) day off work order as a result of the injuries that she had suffered.
Additionally, the record of Dr. Lee which was marked as Exhibit 180 for identification and which is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit C shows that on March 7, 2005 Dr. Lee again notes that the plaintiff had suffered a low back injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident on March 5, 2005.
Ms. Hall in her testimony also claimed that in addition to her low back injury she had sustained an injury to her neck which led to surgery.
No evidence was submitted to this jury which could have led them to the conclusion that there was not an injury related to this accident which required medical care and treatment.
The jury asked the court to define the term harm as part of their deliberation process. The court’s response was harm is an injury to any part of the body caused by the accident. Harm may also be the economic and non-economic damages to a party caused by the accident. (See Part 5 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.