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 auto accident case and its proceedings.)
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
DEFENDANTS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PARTIES
Plaintiff Alexa Brown is represented by counsel.
Defendants Randy Greene is represented by counsel.
INTRODUCTION
This matter arises out of a claim by plaintiff Alexa Brown (age 21) that she was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by defendant Randy Greene in the Community College parking lot in Sacramento, California, on February 7, 2005.
Defendant contends that the impact was minor and no injuries could possibly have occurred. Neither a traffic collision report nor college security report were completed regarding the accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Accident
Plaintiff Alexa Brown (age 20 at the time of the accident) was driving a 2001 BMW 325i.
Defendant Randy Greene (age 21 at the time of the accident) was driving at 2001 Toyota Prerunner.
Plaintiff was leaving campus when the accident took place and was driving her 2001 BMW 325i. She was wearing her seatbelt and her adjustable headrest was adjusted for her height. Plaintiff testified that she was traveling less than 5 miles per hour and she was actually traveling over a speed bump at the time the impact took place.
Plaintiff thought her vehicle was pushed forward about 1-1/2 feet. She also testified that she voluntarily took her foot off of the brake when the impact took place.
After the accident plaintiff and defendant pulled over into a parking lot. She got out of her car at that point without assistance. She had no difficulties exiting her car. The first thing she did was look at the back of the car for damage.
The only damage plaintiff saw to her rear bumper was the word trucks imbedded backwards on her bumper, basically stamped into her bumper from the defendant’s vehicle’s license plate frame. She saw what she described as a stress line to the top of the bumper. She saw no other rear-end damage to her vehicle.
Plaintiff saw no damage to the defendant’s vehicle.
Plaintiff called the Sacramento Police Department from the scene of the accident, but she was informed the police department would not come to the scene if there were no injuries.
After exchanging information with the defendant the plaintiff was able to continue on her way home.
Photographs of the vehicles show no visible rear-end damage.
Plaintiff did not have any visible injuries as a result of the impact.
Plaintiff had no physical complaints at the scene of the accident. Defendant asked her if she was okay, and she said she was. (See Part 2 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.