Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(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.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.