David v. Hernandez
C.A. 2nd; B270133 The Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding speculative…
July 25, 2017 at 04:21 PM
6 minute read
C.A. 2nd;
B270133
The Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding speculative evidence regarding an accident victim's alleged impairment from marijuana use.
Truck driver David Hernandez was hauling a flatbed trailer with a 45,000 pound load of cement when he pulled into a rest area on the opposite side of Pacific Coast Highway to take a nap. When he awoke, it was getting dark. He turned on his lights and drove across the highway into the northbound lane to continue on his route. David Small, who was driving southbound, did not see the unlit flatbed crossing his path until it was too late for him to avoid a collision. He suffered an open fracture of his left shoulder. A urine sample taken at the emergency room tested positive for THC. The test result did not show the concentration of THC in his urine or the extent to which the THC is active or inactive. David told an emergency-room physician that he had occasionally used marijuana but had not consumed it within the prior 36 hours. David sued Hernandez for his injuries. At trial, Hernandez sought to present expert testimony to show that, at the time of the collision, David's ability to drive was impaired by marijuana consumption. David moved in limine to exclude that evidence. Hernandez proffered expert testimony that David's high blood pressure, rapid pulse, rapid respiratory rate, and memory loss following the accident were consistent with marijuana use. David offered an expert declaration that David's urine screening did not show whether the THC in his urine was active or inactive. David also offered his emergency room physician's declaration that David showed no signs of intoxication and, in the physician's opinion, was not impaired in any way. The trial court granted David's motion to exclude Hernandez's expert testimony.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImplications of SCOTUS Expert Intent Ruling for the White-Collar Bar
9 minute readA WA Court's Ban of AI-Enhanced Video Evidence Raises Decade-Old Reliability Issues
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250