Sacramento Woman Suffers Brain Injury In Boating Accident, Part 2 of 8

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 boating accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

3. Bifurcation will save little Court time, because the liability phase will be far more extensive. Even the moving Defendant concedes that it “does not dispute that [Plaintiffs] sustained propeller injury as a result of the accident …”

A. While extensive damages experts have been disclosed, Plaintiffs have been engaged in the process of winnowing the number of medical professionals who will be needed to provide testimony at trial. Expert disclosures are always over-inclusive, because of the need to cover all bases In the event that any of the physicians are on call or engaged in emergency procedures during the time they would otherwise have to testify.

B. Realistically, Plaintiffs’ medical presentation for all plaintiffs will not last more than 3-5 days, especially since there is no apparent dispute about the nature and extent of the injuries. It appears there will be some dispute regarding future medical and care needs, but this testimony will not take more than 1 day of the 3-5 days needed for the damages presentation.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

4. As the Court is aware from previous law and motion and other proceedings, this case involves a tragic boating incident that occurred on July 9, 2006, on Tiny Lake . There were 19 people in the White boat that day. Mr. White was towing a wakeboarder, and was preparing to pick him up In the water when the incident occurred. When this occurs, it is typical that the boat bow will dip slightly below the water, throwing up some spray. In a properly designed boat, this dipping is minor and does not result in the boat taking on water. Unfortunately, as the subject boat came off plane In this Instance, the bow not only dipped drastically below the water line, but continued to descend. This brought the stern of the boat entirely out of the water, causing water to rush onto the boat, and filling it to the gunwales. The passengers in the bow understandably panicked and started to run toward the back of the boat. Plaintiffs Betty Hall and Susan Black were pulled overboard by the force of the water. They were both struck by the turning blades of the boat’s 350 horsepower Indmar engine. Bethany was hit on the left elbow and left buttock. Betty was struck In her head five to six times. She sustained significant physical injuries including the loss of an eye and part of her skull in addition to massive brain damage. (See Part 3 of 8.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information