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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

THIS EVIDENCE IS MORE PROBATIVE THAN PREJUDICIAL AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FUTURE ECONOMIC DAMAGES

Under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of evidence must be weighed against the potential for prejudice. (Ev. Code § 352.) Here, defendant is entitled to introduce evidence to show that plaintiffs' contention that Browne's academic failures are related solely to alleged injuries suffered in the subject accident is not entirely accurate. Defendants are entitled to establish that there are additional reasons he will have difficulty finding gainful employment.
Plaintiffs' are attempting to introduce this incident as another example of plaintiff's ongoing memory and cognitive difficulties, which enhances their claim, but simultaneously attempt to keep defendants from introducing the evidence to support their contentions. Evidence cannot be introduced for the benefit of one party, but then be deemed off-limits for comment by the adverse party. If plaintiff should be permitted to introduce the gun-incident as evidence of his injuries, defendants should be permitted to utilize evidence of the incident to show that plaintiff's post-accident difficulties, and potential future difficulties, do not entirely stem from accident-related incidents.

CONCLUSION

The Court is respectfully requested to deny plaintiffs' instant Motion in Limine.

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

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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence which specifically meets the parameters of relevance, which is intimately tied to the subject matter of the action. See C.C.P. §2017.010; Norton v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1760. At test of relevancy sometimes used by the Courts is the reasonable inference test, where the general test of relevancy of indirect evidence is whether it tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to prove or disprove a material issue. People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 222.

Here, there is a direct relationship between the evidence plaintiff seeks to exclude and critical issues of causation and damages. Plaintiff contends that his academic difficulties are related solely to his traumatic brain injury, and seeks to exclude evidence that his failure to finish high school was related to the entirely unrelated incident involving the gun and knife. The issue is what consequences plaintiff can prove were attributable to his underlying cognitive injuries. Thus, any evidence that impacts that issue is relevant and admissible before the trier of fact.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento ATV Accident Victim's Brain Injury Causes Academic Hardship, Part 3 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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF BROWNE’S ACADEMIC SUSPENSION IN EXTREMELY PROBATIVE TO THE ISSUES OF DAMAGES AND FUTURE DAMAGES

Plaintiff contends that his traumatic brain injury has caused him severe memory and cognitive deficits, and attributes many of the post-accident occurrences in his life to those injuries. He has not been able to complete his high-school education. His academic success at school, after the accident, was poor and as a result he was not eligible for baseball or other athletics. He attributes these academic struggles solely to the 2008 subject accident, irrespective of pre-accident academic difficulties.

In his mediation brief, plaintiff alleges that his medical experts believe the 2010 gun-incident is directly derived and related to the traumatic brain injury. Dr. Randall Hill has opined that plaintiff "did not have the executive functions needed to keep in mind that he had left the rifle in his car, although now attending school, or that his action in doing so would have consequences." Similarly, Dr. Li was also called upon to opine whether or not the gun and knife expulsion incident was related to his TBI.

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

Continue reading "All-Terrain Vehicle Accident Leaves Sacramento Boy With Traumatic Brain Injury, 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 traumatic brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendant Blaine White hereby provides its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Academic and Criminal Charges.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

This matter arises out of a roll-over accident involving a Yamaha Rhino 4x4 off-road vehicle at a dirt track event, which occurred on November 21, 2008. The event took place over the course of the weekend at the Motocross Park (MX) in Sacramento, California. Plaintiffs have filed suit against John and Catherine White, amongst numerous other defendants, alleging that they negligently entrusted the Rhino to their daughter Dylan White and her friend, Jane Small. No other causes of action have been asserted or alleged against Blaine White or Linda White.
Plaintiff Robert Browne claims multiple injuries, including a broken left arm and a traumatic brain injury. As a result of his brain injury, plaintiffs' expert Dr. Randall Hill concludes that he has multiple deficits with respect to memory and executive functioning.

Plaintiffs' instant Motion references an incident that took place in February of 2010, wherein plaintiff Browne was expelled from National High School after admitting that he brought his loaded .22 hunting rifle and skinning knife onto school property (in his pickup truck).

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

Continue reading "Sacramenmto Boy Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 1 of 4" »