Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
DEFENDANT BLACK WAS 100% AT FAULT IN CAUSING THE ACCIDENT
Defendant GHI has admitted in response to admissions that defendant Black was their employee on the day of the incident. Defendant Black has admitted in admissions that his negligence caused the accident. Defendant Black also testified at his deposition that neither Mr. White nor anyone else had done anything that caused or contributed to causing this three vehicle collision. Thus, the issues in this case are the nature and degree of injuries plaintiff suffered in the accident.
THERE WAS NO COMPARATIVE FAULT ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF
At the time of the collision, Mrs. White was wearing her seat belt as determined by CHP Officer Hall. By wearing her seat belt and timely stopping for traffic ahead of her, Mrs. White did all the law required of her. Mrs. White was not comparatively at fault.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
MRI STUDIES OF MRS. WHITE CONDUCTED POST-ACCIDENT FOUND DIFFUSE WHITE BRAIN MATTER LESIONS CONSISTENT WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
Prior to the accident, Mrs. White was a healthy, active 57-year-old bank executive with no neurological problems whatsoever. Immediately after the accident she told the CHP officer, her husband and the triage nurse that she had a headache, neck and back pain. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.