Sacramento Auto Accident Victim Sues For Medical Malpractice, Part 1 of 2
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. 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.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Traffic Collision Report
Defendants, X, Y, Z Medical Center and Edward W., M.D., hereby move for an in limine order precluding evidence of the traffic collision report prepared in regard to the Sacramento traffic accident giving rise to this accident. This motion is based on the grounds that the traffic collision report is not admissible as evidence pursuant to Vehicle Code section 20013, and on the grounds that the witness statements contained therein are inadmissible hearsay. It is also based on Evidence Code section 352.
The defendants request that the plaintiff be precluded from introducing the traffic collision report into evidence and that her counsel be precluded from exhibiting the report to the jury during the trial. The defendants also request that the plaintiff's witnesses, including experts, be precluded from referencing the report and the contents thereof in their testimony and from basing any opinion on the contents of the report.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT IS INADMISSIBLE
This medical malpractice action arises out of an auto versus pedestrian accident that occurred on July 2, 2006. Following the accident, a law enforcement officer investigated, and a traffic collision report was prepared.
That report is inadmissible, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 20013, which provides, No such accident report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of an accident... In Box v. California Date Growers Ass'n (1976) 57 Cal. App.3d 266, the appellate court held that the trial court properly refused to admit into evidence either the police accident report or the diagram portion thereof.
This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the documents, records and pleadings on file herein, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be admitted at the hearing of this motion. (See Part 2 of 2.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.