Sacramento Woman Trips And Falls On Sidewalk And Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 4 of 4

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The opinion of an expert witness may not be based on assumptions of fact that are without evidentiary support or based on factors that are speculative or conjectural, for then the opinion has no evidentiary value and does not assist the trier of fact. Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390. In the Dee case, the trial court properly granted Defendants’ motions in limine to exclude Plaintiffs proposed expert testimony on causation. The experts sought to testify that exposure to mycotoxins caused Plaintiffs symptoms without any evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to mycotoxins. The experts’ opinions lacked foundation, relying on unsupported assumptions. Similarly, here, Mr. Gold provides opinions based on speculative facts with no evidence that such facts actually apply to the parties and the occurrences in this case. See also, Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 CA3d 325,337 (holding that a motion in limine to exclude an expert’s opinion was properly granted where the expert who was prepared to testify as to plaintiffs probable speed at the time of the accident, stated at deposition that he based this opinion on a particular assumption, but there was no evidence of the facts assumed by the expert.)

While it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the historical facts, expert opinion evidence that is based upon a guess, surmise, or conjecture, rather than relevant, probative facts, cannot constitute substantial evidence. In re Anthony C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1493. Mr. Gold’s opinions are based purely on speculation as opposed to relevant probative facts. As such, the Mr. Black and the City seek an Order from this Court precluding Mr. Gold from improperly testifying at trial.

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


Based upon the foregoing, defendants respectfully requests this that Court grant the instant motion in limine and preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Robert Gold, P.E.

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

Contact Information