Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff Peter Hall’s Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
On June XX, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Sacramento Superior Court, Plaintiff Peter Hall will move this Court for an order for a new trial of this matter.
Plaintiff’s Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the evidence and case law, the pleadings, documents, records, and files in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence and argument which may be presented at the hearing on this motion.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On or about February XX, 2008, Plaintiff Peter Hall, age 25, was driving his 2001 Range Rover eastbound on West Blvd. in Sacramento, California. Suddenly, defendant Genvieve White made an unsafe left turn in her 2004 BMW X5 SUV from westbound West towards University Dr., crossing three lanes of traffic, directly in front of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was unable to avoid defendant’s vehicle, resulting in a severe collision between the vehicles.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
On or about March XX, 2010, trial of this matter commenced in Department “X” of the Sacramento Superior Court. During the trial plaintiff presented substantial evidence and expert opinions supporting his position that he had sustained general and special damages totaling in excess of $129,000.00.
On or about March XX, 2010, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant negligent, and awarding Plaintiff damages in the amount of $4,500.00. The jury further allocated fault between the parties, finding Plaintiff seventy-five percent at fault, and defendant twenty-five percent at fault.
The jury clearly came to its decision through a combination of disregard of the law and a motivation of passion and prejudice incited by defendant’s improper arguments. In weighing the actual evidence presented at trial, it is clear that Plaintiff sustained significant injuries that carried future residual problems. Further, the evidence reveals that this was an unavoidable accident for Plaintiff, caused solely by defendants’ negligence. Therefore, the verdict clearly represented a complete disregard of the evidence by the jury. (See Part 2 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.