 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heins v. Garcia12/22/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
We affirm the judgment for defendants in this personal injury action.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2000, plaintiff Glenn Heins and defendant Javier Garcia were involved in a two-car accident while driving westbound on Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood. Plaintiff was driving a van in the number 1 lane, and defendant, who was ahead of plaintiff, was driving a truck in the number 2 lane. Defendant's truck was owned by defendant's employer, defendant H.M.D. Waste Company (HMD).
The accident occurred when plaintiff's van hit the left rear of defendant's truck. According to plaintiff, the accident occurred because defendant's truck suddenly turned in front of plaintiff's van in the number 1 lane.
Defendant, however, denied that he was turning when the collision occurred. Defendant testified that he was in the number 2 lane when plaintiff hit him from behind. Defendant stated that after the impact, the truck rolled to rest with its front end turned slightly to the right (toward the curb), and its left rear corner "in the number 1 lane. But just a little."
Defendant's accident reconstruction expert, Dr. Moses, testified that the physical evidence corroborated defendant's version of the accident. Dr. Moses testified that according to the skid marks, the truck was completely in the number 2 lane, facing straight ahead, at the moment of impact. Dr. Moses estimated that plaintiff was traveling at 55 miles per hour in the 40 mile per hour zone, while defendant was traveling at about 9 miles per hour.
Plaintiff denied that he was speeding. According to plaintiff, defendant suddenly turned left in front of plaintiff in the number 1 lane, causing plaintiff to turn right, into the number 2 lane, in a futile attempt to go behind the truck to avoid a collision. Plaintiff testified that at the moment of impact, defendant's truck was partly in the number 1 lane. Plaintiff's expert witness, Mr. Kobayashi, testified that at the moment of impact, the truck, which Kobayashi believed was going less than 5 miles per hour, "was either on or slightly into the number 1 lane." Kobayashi believed that plaintiff was traveling at 39-40 miles per hour.
The jury returned a special verdict for defendant and HMD, finding they were not negligent. The trial court awarded defendant and HMD their costs, after granting them leave to file their costs bill late.
On appeal, plaintiff seeks a new trial based on contentions of insufficient evidence, evidentiary errors, and procedural irregularity. Plaintiff also contends the costs bill must be stricken as untimely.
DISCUSSION
I.
Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, contending that defendant's version of the accident was filled with inconsistencies. Plaintiff states: "[Defendant] failed to establish, by competent evidence that he was not liable for the subject accident. Through impeachment, [defendant's] veracity/telling the truth at trial was seriously brought into question. At every critical juncture, [defendant's] testimony remained inconsistent and contradicted the evidence presented by the H.M.D. Defendants. [ ] Under the facts of the present matter, there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that . . . [defendant] did not negligently turn into [plaintiff's] lane of travel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|