Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
The First Amended Complaint does not contain mere allegations that the Defendant’s actions were carried on with willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others. In this regard, Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 and Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163, are inapposite to the present case. Unlike Brousseau and Grieves, Plaintiff did not merely allege that Defendant’s actions were “willful” or “malicious.” Plaintiff refrained from making the sort of conclusory arguments that were scorned in Brousseau and Grieves, The claim for punitive damages in Brousseau and Grieves were not based on specific facts. In this case, Plaintiff pled approximately four pages of detailed facts that allege Dr. Lee acted without regard for the safety of others in her operation of a vehicle while sleeping.
As alleged throughout the First Amended Complaint, Dr. Lee was incompetent and unfit to safely operate a vehicle because she was fatigued. From her residency training, she knew that she was a foreseeable threat to the health and safety of the public if she drove in a fatigued or sleepy condition. She deliberately was disregarding the high probability that she would fall asleep behind the wheel and cause permanent harm to another person.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Despite her acute knowledge of the high risk of injuring someone with the vehicle, Dr. Lee consciously chose to drive home while in a fatigued, sleep-deprived and exhausted condition. Furthermore, Dr. Lee turned down alternative means of transportation that were offered by National Hospital. Dr. Lee’s decision to drive under these conditions rose to the level of malice and oppression since she: (1) was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of her conduct, and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences, and (2) her decision to drive home in a sleepy and fatigued state is vile and despicable conduct considering the training that she received to avoid driving under that condition. (See Part 10 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.