A Sacramento Jury returned a verdict less than our offer, and found plaintiff driver to be 20% at fault, even though our client rear-ended plaintiff\u2019s vehicle.<\/p>\n
Our client was driving in evening stop-and-go rush hour traffic in Sacramento.\u00a0 She acknowledged that she rear-ended the car ahead of her, but also believed that the driver ahead had suddenly applied her brakes.\u00a0 Although no ambulances came to the scene, the driver and passenger went to their respective doctors (a primary care physician for one; emergency room for the other) the next day.\u00a0 They then went to chiropractors, and ultimately returned to their general physicians.<\/p>\n
Both plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, and the husband of one also filed, claiming a loss of consortium.\u00a0 During the lawsuit, our client made an offer to settle, which was not accepted.<\/p>\n
A four day jury trial was held in Sacramento County.\u00a0 We called plaintiffs\u2019 treating physicians as our experts to repudiate the claimed need for chiropractic care.\u00a0 We did not hire our own experts.<\/p>\n
The jury deliberated for two hours, and rendered a verdict for amounts less than our offer.\u00a0 In addition, the jury awarded us a defense verdict on the claim for loss of consortium.\u00a0 Finally, we urged, and the jury accepted, that the plaintiff driver was, in part, at fault for the accident.\u00a0 They found her to be 20% comparatively at fault, reducing her already low verdict even lower.<\/p>\n
In the end, the net judgment was for $118 for one plaintiff and in favor of our defendant for the other two.\u00a0 We are now pursuing judgment remedies against those plaintiffs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Sacramento Jury returned a verdict less than our offer, and found plaintiff driver to be 20% at fault, even though our client rear-ended plaintiff\u2019s vehicle. Our client was driving […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog","category-business-litigation"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcdlawyers.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}