Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is 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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s counsel, in open court, intimated that he may reference Hall’s bankruptcy as there were three certain properties included in the initial bankruptcy application. Further information regarding his purpose for introduction of that evidence was not given, but moving party can only assume that it will be used to reference property that may have been community property of Donna Hall as well. Using that information to suggest potential assets of Donna Hall, if that is the intended purpose, would be improper, as there must be a judgment before evidence of assets can be discussed. Here, as there is clearly no judgment, such introduction would be untimely and highly improper.
EVIDENCE OR REFERENCE TO THE PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY OF DEFENDANT IAN HALL HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN THIS CASE, WILL NECESSITATE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME AND IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL
Evidence Code section 352 states that [t]he Court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Evidence or reference to Ian Hall’s personal bankruptcy will have a prejudicial effect on all co-defendants, as it may lead the jury to speculate about the nature, extent and details of that bankruptcy. A jury may end up being more inclined to attribute greater liability to other defendants if they have the belief that Mr. Hall is judgment proof. This clearly has a prejudicial effect on the defendants, as the jury’s concept of apportionment of liability will likely be skewed or affected due to their speculation as to Mr. Hall’s bankruptcy.
Furthermore, evidence or reference to Ian Hall’s bankruptcy will cause confusion within the jury, as there will be questions about what the bankruptcy covers and who is included with the bankruptcy discharge, in addition to other details. This will cause undue confusion and delay within the jury deliberations. Further, taking the time to discuss or explain such bankruptcy intricacies to the jury during general evidence and witness testimony will do nothing more than cause undue delay. Such information is not important or necessary to help the jury to come to its final deliberation, and as such any reference to the bankruptcy should be precluded.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, defendant Ian Hall respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order, before the introduction of evidence, preventing any party, counsel and each and every witness from arguing, mentioning, or interrogating regarding, directly or indirectly, defendant Ian Hall’s personal bankruptcy, which was filed on April 9, 2008 and discharged on August 11, 2008.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.