Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Sacramento Injury Lawyer BlogCourt Must Evaluate Evidence In Sacramento Car Accident Case, Part 9 of 9
By Moseley Collins, Esq.
The following blog entry is written from a defendant?s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases 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 car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff's own medical expert, Dr. Levine, testified that the basis for his opinion (of injury) was only as good as the facts upon which they were based, i.e. the history and reports provided by plaintiff. As indicated above, plaintiff's reporting was replete with distortions and omissions, including but not limited to her failure to reveal to Dr. Levine a subsequent trip and fall for which she sought treatment with a chiropractor for four months. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Finally, plaintiff walked with a prominent limp in front of the jury at all times during the six-day trial. She testified that her limp was always present, both in and out of the courtroom. She was then directly impeached with videotape, shown to the jury, depicting her walking freely and uninhibited, without a cane, just days before the trial commenced. Even without all the additional evidence as discussed above, the video evidence alone was a sufficient basis on which to conclude that plaintiff was not credible and was not truthful in claiming injury in this case.
After hearing all evidence discussed above, the jury held that plaintiff had sustained no injury as a result of the negligence of defendants. California law requires that, in order to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, there must be "no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict" rendered by the jury.
Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on July 30, 2010 (boomark / email).
Construction Site Accidents
Lawsuits related to accidents
Car, Truck, and Motorcycle Accident Injuries
Automobile and Truck Accidents May Result in Law Suits or Insurance Claims
Ladder Accident Injury Claims
Were you or a loved one injured in a ladder accident?
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.
St. Louis Car Accident - St. Louis Auto Accident, St. Louis Car Accident Lawyer
St. Louis Car Accident alleging liability for personal injuries caused by car accidents in St. Louis, Missouri.
Springfield Car Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a car accident in Springfield, Missouri.
Springfield Truck Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a truck accident in Springfield, Missouri.
Springfield Motorcycle Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a motorcycle accident in Springfield, Missouri.
St. Louis Truck Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a truck accident in St. Louis, Missouri.

What Does An Accident Recontructionist Do
OFFICER DOWN- Sacramento CA. www.privateofficer.com
Sacramento Car Accident Proves Fatal for Bicyclist
Sacramento Hit-and-Run Car Accident Injures Bicyclist
Fatal Sacramento Area Car Accident







