Sacramento ATV Accident Victim’s Brain Injury Causes Academic Hardship, Part 3 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.)

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence which specifically meets the parameters of relevance, which is intimately tied to the subject matter of the action. See C.C.P. §2017.010; Norton v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1760. At test of relevancy sometimes used by the Courts is the reasonable inference test, where the general test of relevancy of indirect evidence is whether it tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to prove or disprove a material issue. People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 222.

Here, there is a direct relationship between the evidence plaintiff seeks to exclude and critical issues of causation and damages. Plaintiff contends that his academic difficulties are related solely to his traumatic brain injury, and seeks to exclude evidence that his failure to finish high school was related to the entirely unrelated incident involving the gun and knife. The issue is what consequences plaintiff can prove were attributable to his underlying cognitive injuries. Thus, any evidence that impacts that issue is relevant and admissible before the trier of fact.

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

The defense intends to present evidence of his expulsion and the criminal charges to show that his general judgment was poor, both pre- and post-accident, and that similar negative consequences since the accident are really a product of his own poor choices. The expulsion and felony charges also affect his career prospects. This evidence affects plaintiff’s argument that his only career limitations are due to his arm injury and cognitive deficiencies, as his educational status and criminal charges will also have a profound affect on his career trajectory.

This evidence has significant probative value as well, and this evidence sheds light on plaintiffs academic difficulties, and his failure to complete high school, and the alleged impact of his injuries on his future employment possibilities. (See Evidence Code §210.) (See Part 4 of 4.)

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

Contact Information