Millions of Dollars in Verdicts and Settlements

San Diego Court of Appeal Sides with San Diego County in Car Accident Case

November 29, 2017


As a San Diego car accident lawyer, we know that there are several elements that are absolutely crucial in any car accident case. This following case shows how an improper legal approach can taint your chance at a fair appeal.

The California Court of Appeals in San Diego recently entered a judgment on an appeal from a car accident lawsuit filed against the County of San Diego. In the case, the plaintiff alleged that an employee of the County of San Diego was responsible for his injuries stemming from a car accident that happened while the man was driving in a County vehicle.

At the half-day bench trial, the court found against the plaintiff. He appealed, challenging the factual findings regarding fault. However, there was no court reporter present, so according to the appellate court, the record presented on appeal was limited. At trial, three witnesses testified, which included the plaintiff, the defendant, and a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer. The CHP officer testified first, and the trial court summarized his testimony as follows.

On the day of the accident, the officer, who had been with the CHP for nearly 10 years, arrived on the scene and observed the plaintiff being treated by the paramedics. The officer took the plaintiff’s testimony first and then took the testimony of the defendant. The CHP officer concluded that the plaintiff had failed to yield and had entered the roadway in a “unsafe manner.” He further stated that the plaintiff’s statements with regard to the location of the crash did not match the debris/fluid field. There was no debris or tire marks in the lane where the plaintiff had indicated the collision took place. Additionally, the location of the major damage to both of the vehicles was inconsistent with the plaintiff’s version of the facts. Finally, the officer saw the plaintiff two days later and took his statement for a second time. That statement remained inconsistent with the debris field.

The plaintiff testified second, and the court summarized that he denied being the cause of the accident. On cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that the defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road and was weaving across the center line, purportedly on purpose. The plaintiff did not provide evidence of physical injuries or medical special damages.

The defendant testified last. He insisted that the accident took place in front of the driveway as the plaintiff pulled out into oncoming traffic. The defendant stated that although he attempted to avoid a collision, the plaintiff rolled forward into the street further, and the defendant was unable to avoid the impact.

In issuing its ruling, the court stated that the plaintiff’s version of the accident was inconsistent with the damage to the vehicles, the debris field as documented by the CHP officer, and the additional testimony at trial. Additionally, the court did not find the plaintiff’s testimony to be credible. It stated that the plaintiff failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and thus it found in favor of the defendant.

In reviewing the case, the court stated that its purpose was not to conduct a new trial but instead to determine whether an error had occurred. It particularly found fault with the lack of a court reporter’s transcript, since this is a necessary component in reviewing the trial court’s factual findings. It pointed out that this requirement was integral whether the plaintiff was represented by counsel or not. It was essentially based solely on this lack of record that the court refused to undertake a review of the case, since it stated that it could not do so meaningfully. The judgment was thus affirmed.

The outcome in this case was unfortunate for the plaintiff, since it seemed to hinge solely on the lack of a court reporter transcript. Having a robustly documented case and evidence presented at trial is crucial for cases that end up needing to be appealed. An experienced car accident attorney can ensure that you have all of the necessary bases covered from the time of filing a case through the final disposition.

Auto collisions can lead to serious, life-altering injuries. When victims are injured because of the carelessness of another driver, they are usually entitled to compensation for their injuries. If you were injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of another driver, call 866.771.7181 today to schedule a free consultation with The Rubinstein Law Group.

Call For a Free Consultation
Contact Us