Articles Posted in Car Accidents

In an appeal stemming from an automobile accident, the California Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues of jurisdictional deadlines following service of notice of entry of judgment.  This appeal centers on a rear-end automobile accident case. The plaintiff, Ms. Keely Maroney, turned right and “double parked” while her passenger used an ATM. The defendant, Asaf Iacobsohn, was driving and did not see her vehicle until it was too late to avoid a collision.

A jury tried the case and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Ms. Maroney.   She was found 40 percent at fault, and the defendant, Mr. Iacobsohn, was found 60 percent at fault. The plaintiff’s judgment was rendered in the amount of $44,070.

After entry of judgment, Mr. Iacobsohn moved to recover his costs based on Ms. Maroney’s rejection of his offer to compromise.

Continue reading ›

A recent case before the California Court of Appeal addressed whether it was reasonable for the defendant to reasonably believe he would prevail at trial on the issue of liability stemming from a car accident. While the defendant claimed he entered an intersection during a yellow light, the plaintiffs and substantial evidence suggested that the defendant ran a red light. The defendant failed to admit this fact in response to requests for admissions (RFA), and the plaintiffs sought to recover the costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

Timothy Grace and his wife, Michelle Blair, prevailed in a personal injury action against Levik Mansourian and his mother, Satina Mansourian. They then filed a motion to recover the costs of proof, based on the defendants’ failure to admit specific information in response to requests for admissions. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

In this case, the defendant was driving into an intersection when he hit a car driven by the plaintiff. While the defendant claimed he thought he could pass through the intersection while the light was yellow, an eyewitness told the defendants’ insurance company that the defendant ran a red light.

Continue reading ›

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed an issue of the “bad faith” pursuit of an insurance claim.  Bad faith claims refer to tort claims against an insurance company for acting illegally, performing a bad act, or failing to act in good faith.

In this personal injury and wrongful death case, defendant Cy Tapia, a teenager, was driving a vehicle that crashed, resulting in eventual fatal injuries to his passenger, Cory Driscoll.  Before Mr. Driscoll died, he and his mother filed an action for damages against Mr. Tapia. (For reference herein, Mr. Driscoll and his mother are referred to as “plaintiff.”)

Mr. Tapia’s grandfather owned the vehicle, and Mr. Tapia’s sister had been issued an auto policy. The insurer issued the policy and had offered to settle the action for the policy limits, $100,000.00.

Continue reading ›

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed an order dismissing a case involving a bus accident on Highway 101 in Monterey County. The issue before the court in this case centered on where the action should be tried. The accident led to a consolidated action brought by the passengers or their families against Capitales Tours, S.A. and others. In the first appeal from the 2009 accident, the California Court of Appeal affirmed an order applying forum non conveniens, staying the action for one year. Forum non conveniens provides courts the power to dismiss a case for another court, or forum, that is better suited for the case.

After the stay, which lasted two years, the superior court dismissed the action on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not pursue their claims in France and opposed the French courts’ assumption of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs again appealed and alleged the order was premature and did not comply with procedural and substantive dismissal requirements.

In the accident that led to the litigation, a bus driver lost control of the vehicle while crossing a bridge and collided with the bridge rails, eventually rolling the bus onto its side. Eighteen passengers of the 34 French tourists, and their guide, were ejected from the vehicle, and several were thrown over the bridge onto the railroad tracks below. The driver and four passengers were killed, 21 were severely injured, and 10 suffered minor injuries.

Continue reading ›

In a personal injury lawsuit before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the trial court’s exclusion of evidence concerning a pretrial settlement between the plaintiffs and the taxicab company.

In this case, a taxi passenger, Christine Diamond, was injured during a vehicle collision with another car. Mrs. Diamond and her husband (the Diamonds) brought a negligence action against the drivers and owners of both vehicles. Claims against the taxi driver and the owner of the cab, as well as the Yellow Cab Taxi Company, (Yellow Cab) were settled, and pursuant to a provision in that settlement, Yellow Cab agreed to participate as a defendant in the Diamonds’ jury trial. Yellow Cab moved for a determination that the settlement with the Diamonds had been made in good faith. The Reshkos did not oppose this good faith finding, but they added there must be a recognition at trial that there had been a settlement. The court made the good faith determination but did not decide whether the evidence of the settlement was admissible at trial.

The jury found that both drivers had been negligent and that the driver of the other car, Serge Reshko, and his mother (the Reshkos) had been 60 percent responsible. The Reshkos were held liable to the Diamonds for $406,698.00, plus fees and costs.

Continue reading ›

In a case involving a car accident during a test drive, the California Court of Appeals addressed whether alleged cumulative evidentiary errors during trial and attorney misconduct resulted in prejudice to the defendant.

Kenneth Gonsalves, a BMW salesperson, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Ran Li. Mr. Li was test-driving a vehicle and allegedly drove recklessly, causing the accident in which Gonsalves suffered back injuries. After a jury found Li negligent and Gonsalves not comparatively negligent, Gonsalves was awarded more than $1.2 million in damages.

On appeal, Mr. Li argues the trial court committed evidentiary errors and did not adequately look into juror misconduct. He also alleges Mr. Gonsalves’ trial counsel committed misconduct.

Continue reading ›

In a recent case certified for publication in part, the California Court of Appeal held that the prejudgment interest should apply only to damages in a personal injury lawsuit, and not to costs. The court also rejected the defendant’s claims of error concerning the jury instruction and the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff’s trial counsel.

Eric Lazear, an employee of Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, collided with Daniel Bean’s truck while Mr. Bean was stopped at a red light. Mr. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. Mr. Bean was awarded $1,271,594.74 in damages, including $126,594.74 in economic damages and $1,145,000 in noneconomic damages. The trial court granted Mr. Bean’s motion for prejudgment interest and awarded him $34,830 in costs.

On appeal, Pacific Coast claims that the jury’s noneconomic award is excessive, that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, and that Mr. Bean’s counsel committed misconduct during the trial. Pacific Coast also contends that the trial court erred in their award of prejudgment interest on costs.

Continue reading ›

In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Cline, suffered severe injuries when his motorcycle collided with a car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. Mr. Cline and the driver (and his parents) settled for the limit of their insurance policy, $100,000.00. Mr. Cline then executed a release, effectively releasing the driver and his parents, and “any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree,” from further liability for the accident.Mr. Cline then sued the driver’s grandmother, the sole adult in the car with the teenager at the time of the accident, for negligent supervision. Ms. Homuth, the defendant grandmother, asserted the release as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and a trial took place, centering on whether the release was valid and whether Ms. Homuth was an intended third-party beneficiary of the release.   The trial court found the release was to Ms. Hough’s benefit, and she was entitled to enforce it.

On appeal, Mr. Cline argued the extrinsic evidence showed Ms. Homuth is not an intended beneficiary of the release.   The appellate court first turned to the facts of the case. After the accident in which Mr. Cline was severely injured, his attorney made a demand to the insurance company that provided coverage for the teenage driver’s parents. Since Mr. Cline’s medical expenses exceeded the policy limits, the insurance claims representative deemed payment of the policy limit appropriate.

Continue reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeal case, involving a vehicle collision, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict that only one of the two defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s injuries.

In this case, two vehicles collided in an intersection in Fountain Valley. The traffic light was turning from green to yellow to red as westbound defendant Faith Ciolek began a left turn. Defendant Nathan Heacox entered the intersection, traveling east and intending to proceed straight through. After colliding, Mr. Heacox’s car veered southeast, striking plaintiff Omar Bermudez, who had been on the sidewalk next to his bicycle.

In a special verdict, the jury found both defendants negligent, but Ms. Ciolek was the substantial factor causing harm to Mr. Bermudez. She was responsible for Mr. Bermudez’s $3,751,969 in damages. Ms. Ciolek argues the verdict is inconsistent. Alternatively, Ms. Ciolek claims she is entitled to a new trial on damages, since there is insufficient evidence of the reasonableness of Mr. Bermudez’s medical damages.

Continue reading ›