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 wrongful death/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Radio Roseville’s Motion for Summary Adjudication
INTRODUCTION
In their latest attempt to escape liability, the Radio Defendants ask the Court to rule that Plaintiffs Paul Smith, Steven Davis, and Mike Jones (hereinafter, “the Smith Plaintiffs” ) cannot establish an essential element of their respective claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, i.e., severe emotional distress. Defendants mistakenly assume that because they did not adduce what Defendants consider to be “evidence of severe emotional distress,” then Plaintiffs cannot have suffered it. Not only is this position logically flawed, but by its nature finds Defendants relying almost exclusively on irrelevant facts and unsupported assumptions.
Radio’s motion is fatally flawed; it fails utterly to demonstrate the absence of material, disputed facts with respect to the severity of each Plaintiffs’ emotional injuries. Among other flaws, Defendants imply, without foundation in fact or law, that because the physical symptoms of hyponatremia faded for each within days following the contest, the Smith Plaintiffs cannot have sustained emotional harm. In fact, each Plaintiff has been diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, in addition to a variety of other psychological conditions ranging from anxiety, survivor guilt and water phobia to major depression. To address these issues each Plaintiff is being treated by a variety of mental health care professionals.
Even if the Court somehow found sufficient absence of triable, material facts to consider whether the burden shifts to Plaintiffs, the motion must still fall. Plaintiffs submit 45 Disputed Facts establishing that each of the Smith Plaintiffs has been clinically diagnosed with severe emotional harm, including PTSD; severe survivor guilt; severe anxiety; irrational fear; phobias; and major depression.
Each Plaintiff is undergoing clinical treatment for these conditions, including medical management; the treatment will be necessary for some years to come; and is reasonable, necessary and causally related to the subject incident. Against this, the inferences, assumptions, and implications that form the basis of Defendants’ Motion do not hold water. Because Defendants cannot show an absence of triable, material facts the motion must be denied. (See Part 2 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.