Case details

Defense: Accident could not be avoided due to lane change

SUMMARY

$0

Amount

Verdict-Defendant

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
arm, back, dental, finger, hand, hip, knee, leg, neck, shoulder
FACTS
On May 15, 2013, plaintiff Neco Moss, a 42-year-old unemployed man, was driving in the left (number one) lane on eastbound State Route 210, the Foothill Freeway, in Fontana. When he was near San Bernardino County, his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Juan Orozco. Moments earlier, Orozco had changed from the high occupancy vehicle lane and was trailing Moss’ vehicle. A truck operated by Robert Hartman rear-ended Orozco’s vehicle, causing it to strike Moss’ vehicle. As a result, Moss’ vehicle collided with another vehicle, which then collided with another vehicle. Moss claimed that he suffered . Moss sued Orozco; Hartman; the alleged drivers of the other vehicles involved in the multiple-vehicle accident; several insurance companies that handled Moss’ medical costs; and several other entities. Moss, who appeared pro se, alleged that Orozco, Hartman and the other motorists were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles and that the insurance companies handled his medical costs in bad faith. Judge Bryan Foster decided that the trial would address the claims against Hartman and Orozco only, and the other defendants were either dismissed or removed from the case. Hartman’s counsel contended that Orozco crossed a double yellow line when changing from the HOV lane to the number one lane. Counsel also noted that Orozco testified that when he changed lanes, he saw Hartman 100 feet behind him. Hartman’s counsel argued that, as a result, Hartman could not have done anything to avoid the collision with Orozco. Hartman’s accident-reconstruction expert opined that it would have been impossible for Hartman to avoid the accident. The expert explained that, based on Hartman’s speed and perception, even if Hartman had slammed the brakes, the impact velocity would have been great. The expert also opined that, for Hartman to have stopped in time, Hartman would have had to have braked two seconds earlier than he did, which he testified was impossible. Orozco admitted some fault but claimed that Hartman was going too fast and could have avoided the collision by using his brakes. Orozco’s counsel questioned the parameters of Hartman’s expert’s opinion, on cross-examination, based on the expert’s knowledge as to the time-and-distance analysis and the base facts of perception and distance., Moss claimed that, after the accident, he had pain to his mouth, neck, back, arms, hips, shoulders, hands, knees and legs. He treated with chiropractic care nine times and saw a dentist in 2014. He also underwent medical exams at college student clinics. Moss attempted to bring his medical records and bills into evidence, but defense counsel moved to exclude them, as Moss had no experts to testify about his medicals. As a result, the jury never heard about Moss’ medical bills, alleged diagnoses and alleged lost earnings. However, Moss was allowed to describe his alleged pain and treatment.
COURT
Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case