 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. City of Los Angeles11/23/1993
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN.
No. B069091
1993.CA.40946 ; 20 Cal. App. 4th 436; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 528
Decided: November 23, 1993.
BETTY JONES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. LASC C758040, Jan A. Pluim, Judge.
James K. Hahn, City Attorney, Thomas C. Hokinson, Assistant City Attorney, and Renee J. Laurents, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.
Freeburg, Judy, Macchiagodena & Nettels and Steven J. Freeburg for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion by Johnson, J., with Lillie, P. J., and Woods Fred, J., Concurring.
Johnson
This suit is the result of an automobile accident involving a truck owned by the City of Los Angeles (City). Liability for the accident was admitted by the City and the trial was limited to the issue of damages. A jury awarded the plaintiff $5.5 million in damages. On motion of the City the trial court conditionally granted a new trial in the event the plaintiff did not agree to a reduced award of $3.85 million. The plaintiff agreed to the remitted award and judgment was entered accordingly. The City appeals contending there is insufficient evidence of causation of the plaintiff's paraplegia to justify the remitted amount of damages, the trial court erred in failing to state reasons for reducing the award, an inflammatory "Day in the Life" videotape of the plaintiff prejudiced its case, and juror misconduct requires a new trial on the issue of damages. We reject these contentions of error and affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Discussion
I., II.
III. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING THE "DAY IN THE LIFE" VIDEOTAPE TO BE PRESENTED AT TRIAL.
Ms. Jones submitted a 20-minute long videotape of her daily activities at home since being confined to a wheelchair. This so-called "Day In The Life" videotape depicts Ms. Jones being moved from her bed by two attendants, being bathed, being placed in her wheelchair and shows her attempting to move around in the chair. On objection by the City, the trial Judge and attorneys for both parties reviewed the videotape outside the presence of the jury. The City objected on the ground the videotape was hearsay because "it's making a statement that really can't be cross-examined." The City also
suggested the videotape was cumulative of oral testimony to be given by a nurse who was present during the entire filming of the videotape.
In addition, the City argued the videotape was far more prejudicial than probative of any issue in the case. The City specifically objected to one segment of the videotape where the camera zooms in on Ms. Jones's face while she is in obvious discomfort and is grimacing. No objection was made on the ground of a lack of foundation or failure to authenticate the videotape, as the City conceded such an objection stood little chance of success.
In this case the trial court found the videotape to be "relevant and material" on the issue of Ms. Jones's current medical treatment and probative of the difficulties she now faces in her daily life. The court concluded its ruling by stating " der 352 of the Evidence Code, the court does not find that the prejudicial effect outweighs the pro
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.
|
|