Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Injuries In Car Accident, Part 1 of 9

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. 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 also 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 Alice Hall will move the court to grant her motion for new trial on the issue of damages on the grounds set forth within her notice of intention to move for new trial, filed separately.


The jury in this matter returned a verdict on special questions submitted to them on November 7, 2008.

Prior to the matter going to the jury the defendant Charles White by and through his attorney of record, Jeffrey Smith, had admitted liability. Therefore, the only special questions presented to the jury dealt with the issues of damages. In this verdict the jury found that defendant Charles White’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff Alice Hall. None of the other special questions were responded to.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict within the statutory period after the verdict was entered. No written notice of the entry of the judgment has ever been given to this party. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the notice for new trial, plaintiff alleged the following grounds:

1. Irregularity in proceedings of the court and jury;
2. Misconduct of the jury;
3. Inadequate damages;
4. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the verdict is against law;
5. Error of law occurring at trial.

It is the position of this plaintiff that the jurors failed to follow the law as required as it relates to the finding of substantial harm to plaintiff. In that regard, it is the position of this plaintiff that the jury’s verdict was against the law and without evidentiary support.

It is respectfully submitted that the verdict in this case was not the result of deliberation, but instead was a result of improperly concealed passions and prejudice, and that the conscious decision of the jury was not to follow the law. This misconduct was compounded by erroneous introduction of evidence. As such, the entire verdict is tainted by egregious jury misconduct and error, and plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages. (See Part 2 of 9.)

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

Contact Information