Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF HAS PLED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO JUSTIFY SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN PARAGRAPH 39 AND SETTING FORTH THE PRAYER FOR SUCH RELIEF

Plaintiff Has Met the Notice Pleading Requirement Under California Law

As established above, under California's notice pleading requirement, Plaintiff has only to plead ultimate facts sufficient to apprise Defendant of the basis upon which Plaintiff is seeking relief. Paragraphs 6-7, 12-14, 29, 32, 34-35 and 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint contain sufficient factual allegations regarding Dr. Brown's actions that amount to despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.)

Plaintiff's allegations against Dr. Brown that give rise to punitive damages are consistent with Roth v. Shell Oil Co. (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 676 and Fick v. Nilson (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 683, as they are based on facts and not speculation. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant worked excessive hours as a resident atUniversal Hospital, worked an overnight shift the night of the incident, knew or should have known that driving home while fatigued and sleep-deprived could result in dangerous harm to others, drove home in a fatigued and sleep-deprived condition and caused her vehicle to mow down Plaintiff. Plaintiffs allegations are rooted in facts, not conjecture.

What the eyewitnesses said is factual, not speculative. The allegation regarding what the witnesses observed in Paragraph 29 is taken directly from the statements witnesses provided to police officers at the scene of the incident. That allegation is rooted in fact, not conjecture and supports Plaintiff's notice pleading regarding punitive damages.

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

Continue reading "Brain-Injured Sacramento Man Sues Doctor After Car Accident, Part 7 of 9" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

In Taylor, the Supreme Court explained the availability of punitive damages to plaintiffs in motor vehicles tort actions:

A conscious disregard of the safety, of others may constitute malice within the meaning of Section 3294 of the Civil Code. In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully [sic] and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. Id. at 895. (emphasis added.) Taylor and Peterson are directly applicable to this case. Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, which is based on Dr. Brown's awareness of the probable dangerous consequences of operating a vehicle under fatigue and while asleep and her actions of deliberately failing to avoid the dangerous consequences by driving in a fatigued state, is undeniably supported by California law.

Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that Defendant's actions were "reckless" within the meaning of C.C. § 3294. "Recklessness" is defined as:

[A] subjective state of culpability greater than simple negligence, which, has been described as a "deliberate disregard" of "the high degree of possibility" than an injury will occur. Recklessness, unlike negligence, involves more than "inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions" but rather rises to the level of a "conscious choice of a course of action ... with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it." Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.

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

Continue reading "Reckless Sacramento Doctor Causes Brain Injury During Auto Accident, Part 6 of 9" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

LEGAL STANDARDS ON MOTION TO STRIKE

Motions to strike are not favored. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 7:197. The policy of California law is to construe the pleadings liberally ... with a view to substantial justice. C.C.P. § 452.

Plaintiff's Complaint meets the notice pleading requirements under California law. What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. Perkins v. Superior Ct, (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6. Specificity is not required in the Complaint because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading. Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.

The Complaint adequately informs Dr. Brown of the damages sought and the legal bases for those damages. Since Plaintiff has met the notice pleading requirements, Dr. Brown's motion to strike should fail on all accounts.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE ALLOWABLE IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS

Dr. Brown erroneously argues that her negligent or reckless use of a vehicle is not sufficient to warrant punitive damages. This is not a case of mere negligence as Dr. Brown asserts. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Dr. Brown pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294, which states in pertinent part:

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Doctor Falls Asleep While Driving, Strikes Pedestrian Causing Brain Injury, Part 5 of 9" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

13 C.C.R. 1214 provided that no driver shall operate a motor vehicle while the driver's ability or alertness is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired, through fatigue, illness or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for her to begin or continue to operate the motor vehicle.

Cal. Veh. Code § 21209 provided that no person shall operate a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on the roadway pursuant to section 21207 except to park where permitted, to enter or leave the roadway or to prepare for a turn within 200 feet from the intersection.

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

Cal. Veh. Code § 21663 provided that except as expressly permitted pursuant to the vehicle code, no person shall operate or move a motor vehicle upon a sidewalk except as may be necessary to enter or leave adjacent property.

Cal. Veh. Code § 21952 provided that the driver of motor vehicle, prior to driving over or upon a sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching thereon.

Cal. Veh. Code § 22107 provided that no person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such'movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Suffers Brain Injury When Struck By Local Physician, Part 4 of 9" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE - DESPICABLE CONDUCT WHICH IS CARRIED ON BY DR. BROWN WITH THE WILLFUL AND CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF OTHERS

Plaintiff specifically pled additional facts - not conclusions - supporting the allegations of malice. For instance, in Paragraph 29, the following facts were pled:

29. Defendant Melissa Brown, M.D., failed to use reasonable care while negligently, wantonly and recklessly driving the subject vehicle east on University.

Defendant Melissa Brown, M.D., fell asleep while driving and drove the subject vehicle up and onto the raised sidewalk and struck the pedestrian Plaintiff from behind.

Plaintiff flew violently onto the hood and smashed into the windshield, then up onto the roof. He was carried approximately 59 feet east before being thrown off the top of the vehicle. Defendant Melissa Brown, M.D., then dragged Plaintiff approximately 38 feet where she ultimately ran over him while still asleep.

Witnesses at the accident site described Defendant Melissa Brown, M.D., as being dazed and confused, and acting like a spectator who did not understand what was going on.

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

Continue reading "Fatigued Doctor Hits Sacramento Pedestrian Causing Catastrophic Brain Injury, Part 3 of 9" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT SUPPORT PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
On June 16, 2009, shortly before 1:00 p.m., David Hall, a pedestrian, was proceeding on the eastern sidewalk of University, near the intersection of Smith Road, in Sacramento. Dr. Brown was driving east on University. Dr. Brown fell asleep while driving and drove up and onto the raised sidewalk and struck David from behind. David flew violently onto the hood and smashed into the windshield, then up onto the roof. David was carried approximately 59 feet east before being thrown off the top of the vehicle. Dr. Brown, while still asleep, then dragged David approximately 38 feet where she ultimately ran over him.

On June 16, 2009, Dr. Brown was working as a medical resident at Universal Hospital in Sacramento, California, which is owned and operated by Defendant County Medical Center
("CMC"). Plaintiff alleged that immediately prior to the incident, Dr. Brown worked excessive hours, including but not limited to an overnight shift after inadequate rest and without any rest. Dr. Brown acted recklessly and with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others by driving a vehicle in a fatigued condition when she knew or should have known that she was not capable of safely driving home. (Id.) (See Part 3 of 9.)

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