Sacramento Boy Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 1 of 4

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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendant Blaine White hereby provides its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Academic and Criminal Charges.

This matter arises out of a roll-over accident involving a Yamaha Rhino 4×4 off-road vehicle at a dirt track event, which occurred on November 21, 2008. The event took place over the course of the weekend at the Motocross Park (MX) in Sacramento, California. Plaintiffs have filed suit against John and Catherine White, amongst numerous other defendants, alleging that they negligently entrusted the Rhino to their daughter Dylan White and her friend, Jane Small. No other causes of action have been asserted or alleged against Blaine White or Linda White.

Plaintiff Robert Browne claims multiple injuries, including a broken left arm and a traumatic brain injury. As a result of his brain injury, plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Randall Hill concludes that he has multiple deficits with respect to memory and executive functioning.

Plaintiffs’ instant Motion references an incident that took place in February of 2010, wherein plaintiff Browne was expelled from National High School after admitting that he brought his loaded .22 hunting rifle and skinning knife onto school property (in his pickup truck).

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

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence or comment as the expulsion, or the pending criminal charges associated with the incident. One point that remains unclear is whether plaintiffs see to exclude mention of the actual event itself, or simply the academic/criminal repercussions of this incident.

The crux of defendant’s opposition to this Motion lies in the fact that plaintiff is using this incident as an example of his memory and cognitive functioning deficits. He, and his experts, are attributing this incident with the hunting rifle as stemming directly from the injuries he sustained in the subject accident in 2008. Plaintiff is using this incident to demonstrate to the jury how his alleged injuries will impact his life and future livelihood However, defendants should be permitted to introduce evidence showing that plaintiff’s behavior, lifestyle and choices have affected his academic and occupational outlook, and that factors other than his alleged traumatic brain injury will have a significant impact on his future. Defendants should be permitted to present evidence showing that this incident is not the result of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, but is in fact in-line with his pre-accident nature, and that the repercussions of this unrelated incident (felony charges) will have significant impact on his future damages claims. (See Part 2 of 4.)

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

Contact Information