Sacramento Brain 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 brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit arises out of an accident that occurred at a crosswalk for southbound Freedom Avenue near 35th Street on July 6, 2008. At the time of this accident, Plaintiff Donna Lee ("Lee") was struck while jogging in the subject crosswalk by a car driven by co-defendant Matthew Black ("Black"). As a result of being struck by the car driven by defendant Black, Plaintiff Donna Lee sustained severe head and traumatic brain injuries that resulted in her being in a coma for several weeks. Ms. Lee filed a First Amended Complaint in which both the City of XYZ ("City") and Black were named as defendants. Plaintiff asserts a claim against the City for dangerous condition of public property pursuant to Government Code Section 835.

Plaintiff Lee served her expert designation on January 7, 2010. Plaintiff has designated Robert Gold, P.E., a traffic engineer, to testify as to issues of traffic engineering and transportation planning. Mr. Gold's deposition was taken on February 2, 2010. The opinions provided by Mr. Gold were based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support and pure speculation. As such, his opinions have no evidentiary value and should be excluded from evidence.

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

Continue reading "Dangerous City Sidewalk Fall Causes Brain Injury To Sacramento Woman, Part 2 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.)

Defendant Matthew Black and City of XYZ’s’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Robert Gold, P.E., from Testifying as Plaintiff’s Expert.

Defendants Matthew Black and City of XYZ move the court in limine, before trial and selection of the jury, for an order precluding plaintiffs expert, Robert Gold, P.E., from rendering any expert opinions at the time of trial. Mr. Gold's expert deposition was taken on February 2, 2010. In light of Mr. Gold's testimony at deposition, it is apparent that Mr. Gold's expert opinion is not based upon reliable facts or data, but is instead based upon assumptions and speculation. As such, the Defendant now seeks an Order from this Court precluding Mr. Gold from improperly testifying at trial.

This motion is made pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 801, 802 and 352 as well as interpretive case law including Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390. An expert's opinion based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support, or on speculative or conjectural factors, has no evidentiary value and may be excluded from evidence.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury From Sidewalk Fall, Part 1 of 4" »

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.)

FACTS REGARDING WITNESSES’ OBSERVATIONS OF DR. BROWN IN PARAGRAPH 13 SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Dr. Brown seeks to strike the following allegations from Paragraph 13, Page 3, line 27 to Page 4, line 2 of the Complaint:

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

Without any supporting authority, Defendant simply claims these allegations "add nothing to the elements of the complaint or the allegations of punitive damages and should be stricken." Facts pertaining to witness observations at the scene are relevant to, inter alia, issues of Dr. Brown's egregious conduct and how impaired she was at the time of the incident. This fact helps establish that Dr. Brown drove a vehicle with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, including David Hall. Plaintiff's factual allegations describing Dr. Brown at the scene are integral to the negligence causes of action in the Complaint and Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages. Defendant's vague objection hardly justifies striking this salient fact.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury Due To Doctor's Reckless Conduct, Part 9 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.)

Dr. Brown's Reliance on Cases After Judgment or Verdict Is Misplaced - Plaintiff Need Not Prove That He Should Be Awarded Punitive Damages at The Pleadings Stage

Dr. Brown relies on Ebaugh v. Rabkin, (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, and Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc., (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, which are not applicable to David Hall's Complaint. Ebaugh concerned the reversal of a jury's award of punitive damages because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict for punitive damages against the employee and employer.

There was also prejudicial error because one of the jury instructions permitted punitive damages against the employer if it found the employee was acting in a willful, reckless or wanton manner without regard to the employer's conduct in directing or ratifying the employee's actions. Id. at .895-896. Nolin also involved affirming a jury verdict awarding punitive damages against an employer for the actions of an employee. Ebaugh and Nolin do not apply to this stage of the litigation since they were appeals of a jury verdict at trial. The standard for meeting the burden of proof to overturn a jury verdict is certainly different from the notice pleading requirements of California law.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Pedestrian Seeks Punitive Damages For Brain Injury Accident, Part 8 of 9" »