Personal Injury Law

Car Collides With Sacramento Motorcycle Rider, Part 4 of 5

By Moseley Collins, Esq.

The following blog entry is written from a defendant?s position after a jury trial verdict for plaintiff. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.

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

LEGAL DISCUSSION

THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO SET ASIDE AN EXCESSIVE VERDICT UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE

A New Trial Should Be Granted Because The Award for Past and Future Pain and Suffering by the Jury Was Unsupported by the Evidence.

The Court has authority and the power in this case to reweigh the evidence independently from that of the jury to determine whether the past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering award was excessive.

Defendant maintains that the amounts award by the jury for past and future noneconomic damages is simply unsupported by the evidence. To that end, the evidence at trial demonstrated that plaintiff suffered only soft tissue injuries. Plaintiff testified at trial that plaintiff's CT scans and x-rays taken at the hospital following the accident were all negative.

None of plaintiff's doctors testified at trial that plaintiff required surgery or that he would require surgery in the future. Plaintiff's past medical bills were only $15,221 and there was no evidence presented at trial to suggest that plaintiff suffered enduring, severe injuries or pain as a result of the motorcycle accident.

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on November 15, 2009 (boomark / email).