Woman Alleges Defendants’ Negligence Caused Sacramento Car Accident, Part 2 of 2

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case 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.)

Plaintiff claimed that the ditch was, therefore, a hazard without any cones, barricades, caution tape, or other warnings along the edge of the upper parking lot, and that the gate to the lot should not have been left open.

Defendant Maerk contended that defendants wood supplier and/or premises owner were negligent in leaving the parking lot gate open, in that he had told the property owner to keep the gate closed. Defendant Maerk also contended that the plaintiff’s employer was negligent for driving at an unsafe speed for the rainy conditions and for failing to see the ditch.


According to Plaintiff: Mild traumatic brain injury; chronic debilitating migraine headaches; decreased concentration; cognitive problems; vertigo; tinnitus; fatigue; memory problems; depression; anxiety.

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


Plaintiff alleged that she was limited to 24 hours of work per week for the remainder of her work life, that her injuries precluded her from passing the architectural licensing examination, and that she was now limited to work as a designer. Defendant Maerk contended that plaintiff did not sustain a mild traumatic brain injury, but that her symptoms were a psychiatric reaction to the incident. Defendant contended that plaintiff should go to a headache specialist, and that psychiatric care would improve her symptoms. Defendant Maerk contended that plaintiff’s earning capacity was not limited by her inability to become a licensed architect.


According to Plaintiff: Demand $1,000,000 (CCP § 998). Offer: $50,000. Prior to the trial, plaintiff settled with defendants wood supplier and premises owner for their $1,000,000 policy limits with the understanding that plaintiff would be entitled to 75 percent of their express/equitable indemnity recovery against defendant Maerk, if any, and that defendants wood supplier and premises owner would be entitled to 25 percent of plaintiff’s recovery against defendant Maerk, if any.

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

Contact Information