The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)
This case arises from an accident involving a bus, a van, and a pedestrian, which occurred on November 13, 2002. Trial of this matter commenced on March 26, 2005, the Honorable David Black presiding.
Evidence at trial established that the subject accident occurred when defendant Smith swerved in an attempt to avoid striking a pedestrian, defendant Tina Greene. As he swerved, the front right comer of defendant Smith’s van scraped against the front right corner of a city bus operated by plaintiff.
At trial, plaintiff claimed extensive personal injuries, including soft tissue injury to her neck and back, and wage loss commencing at the time of the subject accident and continuing to and ongoing at the time of trial. At trial, defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith denied liability, and asserted that the subject accident did not generate force sufficient to cause injury and that plaintiff sustained no injury as a result of the accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The jury found that Randy Smith was negligent but found that such negligence was not the cause of injury and damage to plaintiff.
Plaintiff now moves for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict claiming that evidence at trial was undisputed in establishing damages and causation. Plaintiff is wrong. In fact, a significant portion of the six-day trial in this matter was devoted to presentation of conflicting evidence regarding the existence of injuries and the cause or relation of any such injuries to the negligence of defendant.
At trial, defendants’ theory of the case, (in addition to disputing liability), was based on a lack of injury and a lack of causation. Defendant presented evidence showing that forces on the occupants of the respective vehicles involved in the accident were insufficient to cause injury. Defendant presented testimony of various experts, percipient witnesses and documentary evidence in the form of medical records and photographs to support this theory. (See Part 3 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.