| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

In addition, Mr. Miller testified:

Q: Is this floor, as far as you’re concerned — is it something that if an employee is looking for water on the floor, you would expect him to see it and correct it?

A. Sure.

Q. If an employee is engaged in restocking activities in the area where Ms. Black fell, even if their job at that moment is to restock, if they saw water on the floor, they should clean it up,

A. Absolutely.

Mr. Miller also testified:

The store in question has 27,000 square feet of customer sales floor area. The time of plaintiff’s accident (roughly 8:45 a.m.) was a slow time for customers at the store. All employees are trained to look out for slip and trip hazards, including water. He does not know where all his employees were at the time of plaintiffs fall. Although there is videotape capability in the are where Ms. Black fell, there was no videotape. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The employee documents his inspection into the sweep log recording system after the sweep is completed. Mr. Miller saw plaintiff on the floor after her fall. He marked a “C” on the floor plan exhibit to his deposition showing where Ms. Black fell. Ms. Black was initially face down, but then sat up on the floor where she fell. She was there about 15 minutes before paramedics arrived.

The most common causes of moisture on the floor are meats and produce.

Deposition of Nancy Smith

Nancy Smith was working the dairy section. She testified as follows:

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

The later case of Hurlbut has affirmed that lost years are not subject to periodic payments. Later authority has affirmed that the lost years award is an exception to the rule of periodic payments under Civil Procedure section 667.7 (Hurlbut v. Sonora Community Hospital (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 388.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

California has now rejected the defense argument of saved costs of necessities. The “lost years” should not be reduced by the “saved cost of necessities.” Defense counsel may argue that the “lost years” award should be reduced by the amount saved because of a reduced life expectancy. The First District has now held the majority view is that no deduction is made for the injured part’s expected living expenses during the lost years. (Overly, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 175.) No court has endorsed the approach that would deny lost years damages because it is the widespread practice to award the plaintiff full compensation for his lost years damages (Fleming, The Lost Years: A Problem in the Computation and Distribution of Damages (1962) 50 Cal.L.Rev. 598). (See Part 3 of 8.)

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy General, or Sutter Hospital.

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, A BRAIN INJURY EXPERT MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED REGARDING MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS RELIABLE AUTHORITIES

Evidence Code §721(b) provides as follows:

(b) If a witness testifying as an expert testifies in the form of an opinion, he or she may not be cross-examined in regard to the content or tenor of any scientific, technical, or professional text, treatise, journal, or similar publication unless any of the following occurs:
(1) The witness referred to, considered, or relied upon such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion.
(2) The publication has been admitted in evidence.

(3) The publication has been established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Pursuant to the said section, once the item of medical literature has been established as a reliable authority by the expert’s testimony, that reliable authority may be utilized to cross-examine the defense expert.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. 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 note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

Response of Defendants, Mark Davis, M.D., Glenn Hall, M.D., and Universal Perinatal Group, to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Trial Preference; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFFS ARE SEEKING A PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING AS ONE OF A NUMBER OF STRATEGIC MANEUVERS DESIGNED TO IMPEDE DEFENDANTS AND PREJUDICE THEIR ABILITY TO PROPERLY PREPARE THIS MATTER FOR TRIAL.

This is an action for medical malpractice and intentional tort (battery) arising out of the care and treatment rendered to co-plaintiff, Kristy Smith, during the course of her pregnancy with, and during the delivery of minor plaintiff, Owen Smith. This action also appears to be based on the care and treatment rendered to the infant immediately following his birth. With respect to the infant, plaintiffs are alleging that he suffers from severe and catastrophic neurological deficits as a result of defendants’ alleged negligence. Plaintiffs, Wesley Smith and Kristy Smith, are also alleging a cause of action for emotional distress. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal 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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged facts that established how Dr. Black acted with oppression by subjecting plaintiff to serious physical injuries in knowing disregard of his right to safety. (Id.) Given defendant’s training at Central Hospital, Dr. Black should have avoided driving home on June 16, 2007. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff’s allegations supporting his punitive damages claims are not irrelevant or conclusory. The allegations set forth actual facts regarding Dr. Black’s extensive training on how to acknowledge and avoid the dangerous conduct that gave rise to the present litigation. Facts establishing Dr. Black’s training on fatigue and sleep-deprivation are directly relevant here.

Further, Dr. Black’s decision to drive while impaired is no different than a person driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol with conscious disregard for the safety of others. Punitive damages are routinely pled in motor vehicle accident cases where the defendant was driving under the influence. See, e.g., Peterson v. Superior Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 147; Taylor v. Superior Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894. In fact, plaintiff is clearly entitled to plead punitive damages under statutory and common law rights controlling his causes of action. Those include: Civ. Code § 3294; Potter v. Firestone & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 985; Taylor, 24 Cal.3d at 894.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Deposition of Store Manager Tom Miller (Designated PMK)

In response to plaintiffs’ CCP 2025 notice for corporate representative most knowledgeable about store procedures, XYZ Market produced its store manager, Tom Miller. In his deposition quoted below, Mr. Miller confirmed that every employee has an obligation to maintain a lookout for slip hazards, and clean them up when they see them:

Q. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about XYZ Market’s floor inspection or sweep policy. Is it XYZ Market’s position that safety is every employee’s responsibility?

A. Absolutely.

Q. You have a slogan, Don’t pass it by, pick it up, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. If an employee sees something on the floor such as liquid or debris, they’re supposed to pick it up immediately; is that right?

A. Attend to it as soon as they can, yes.

Q. Is liquid on a store floor a safety hazard?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Are foreign substances on the floor a safety hazard?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Does every employee have an obligation to check the floor in areas where they’re working?

A. Yes.

Mr. Miller testified further:

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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 note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Photographs in evidence included pictures of the County Transit Authority Bus which plaintiff was operating at the time of the collision. Photographs revealed mere scraping damage to the left front corner and some damage to a protruding side view mirror. Repair estimates produced at trial revealed no structural damage to the bus.

Defendant called the owner of the van driven by defendant at trial. The owner testified that the only damage to the van was to the right side view mirror. He estimated damage at approximately $100. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendants also called Dr. Edward Stein, a physicist, to testify with regard to causation. Dr. Stein testified that the force of the collision between the delivery van and the 40-foot bus would have resulted in plaintiff merely feeling a “vibration” in her seat. He stated that a glass of water on the dashboard would not have spilled as a result of he impact. He further testified that the bus would have only rocked slightly as a result of contact between the vehicles.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

Charles Black Testimony

Charles Black was not present for the incident, but has testified that store manager Tom Miller told him that XYZ Market had video of the are where the fall occurred both before and after the incident. He told Mr. Black that the video had been sent to Kim Li, XYZ Market’s District Manager, for review. Mr. Black later talked with Kim Li who told him she had the video. Charles Black felt his wife’s pants at the Emergency Room and they were wet in the buttocks area and on both thighs. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

XYZ Market’s Policies and Procedures
Documents

XYZ Market has produced documents it claims are confidential trade secret pursuant to a agreement for protective order. Plaintiff relies on some of these documents, which are lodged herewith as separate. Chief among these are documents entitled “Customer Accident Prevention” and “Slip and Fall Prevention,” which state that each and every XYZ Market employee shares equal responsibility for detecting an correcting slip and fall hazards. Don’t pass it by, pick it up is XYZ Market’s motto in this regard. Plaintiffs are lodging XYZ Market’s claimed confidential trade secret documents pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 2.551 (b)(3). Plaintiffs do not intend to file a motion to have the records sealed, and hereby give notice to XYZ Market that the records lodged herewith, will be placed in the public court file unless XYZ Market files a timely motion or application to seal the records.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF ON “LOST YEARS” AND “SAVED COST OF NECESSITIES”
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION

The medical malpractice case at issue involves severe and permanent neurological injuries suffered by minor Owen Smith, at or around the time of his birth on February 21, 2000.

There will be expert testimony that the minor will never be employed. Because the minor will not be able to work, she is entitled to damages described as lost years – i.e. the time by which a plaintiff’s work life expectancy is shortened because of the injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The minor is entitled to a “lost years” jury instruction. The Supreme Court specifically addressed the issue of “lost years”; where a plaintiff’s work life expectancy is shortened, this loss is compensable (Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137). And in August 1999, the First District reaffirmed the “lost years” damage award: Fein expressly recognized a right to recover damages for the loss of prospective earnings during the period of time by which the plaintiff’s life expectancy has been diminished. (Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 164, 172.)

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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 note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

FACTS

This case arises from an accident involving a bus, a van, and a pedestrian, which occurred on November 13, 2002. Trial of this matter commenced on March 26, 2005, the Honorable David Black presiding.

Evidence at trial established that the subject accident occurred when defendant Smith swerved in an attempt to avoid striking a pedestrian, defendant Tina Greene. As he swerved, the front right comer of defendant Smith’s van scraped against the front right corner of a city bus operated by plaintiff.

At trial, plaintiff claimed extensive personal injuries, including soft tissue injury to her neck and back, and wage loss commencing at the time of the subject accident and continuing to and ongoing at the time of trial. At trial, defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith denied liability, and asserted that the subject accident did not generate force sufficient to cause injury and that plaintiff sustained no injury as a result of the accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The jury found that Randy Smith was negligent but found that such negligence was not the cause of injury and damage to plaintiff.

Continue Reading ›