Preview
FILED
9/17/2020 11:08 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Darling Tellez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC- 1 9- 1 3584
ALFONSO LARA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
VS.
160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DAYAKAR PINDI,
Defendant.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD
PARTY DESIGNATION
DAYAKAR PINDI, hereinafter referred to as Defendant, whether one or more, files this
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE
THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION, and respectfully shows the Court the following:
After granting a Motion to Designate a Responsible Third Party, a party may move the
strike the designation 0n the ground that these is no evidence regarding that person’s
responsibility for any portion of the claimant’s alleged injury or damage. “The Court shall grant
the motin t0 strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence t0 raise a genuine issue 0f fact
regarding the designated person’s responsibility for the claimant’s injury 0r damage.” (CPRC
33.004(l). ) Plaintiff has now moved to strike the RTP designation. A11 defendant must do is
“raise a genuine issue of fact” regarding that person’s responsibility t0 defeat the motion.
Initially, it is pointed out that Plaintiff was unlicensed at the time of the accident, and that
Plaintiff’s employer (the designated Responsible Third Party) was aware 0f that fact:
Q. Okay. So, in other words, at the time of the
accident, your driver's license did not allow you to
permissibly drive in the State of Texas because it had
OOQQUI-bUJN
expired. Is that correct?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. Did Exterior export -- Experts know that you
did not have a non-expired driver's license at the time
Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 1
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
DESIGNATION
0526771613.1
9 0f this accident?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as far as you knew, they permitted you to
12 drive 0n an expired driver's license.
13 A. Yes.
Deposition of Alfonso Lara, page 10, lines 2-13.
T0 establish a cause 0f action for negligent entrustment, Defendant must show that: (1)
the owner entrusted the vehicle, (2) to an unlicensed, incompetent or reckless driver, (3) whom
the owner knew 0r should have known was unlicensed, incompetent 0r reckless, (4) that the
driver was negligent 0n the occasion in question, and (5) that the driver’s negligence proximately
caused the accident. Soodeen V. Rychel, 802 S.W.2d 361 (TeX.App.-Houston(1st/Dist) 1990.
Plaintiff’ s own testimony established that he was an unlicensed driver and the owner knew that
he was unlicensed at the time. The only “prong” missing is Defendant raising a genuine issue 0f
material fact t0 support the negligence of Plaintiff.
This is an accident that occurred When Defendant was making a left turn across plaintiff” s
path of travel.
Plaintiff testified that although he saw the oncoming Defendant vehicle, he recognized
the danger, but failed t0 swerve t0 the left, even though there was no traffic in the lane to his left
that would have prevented him from swerving to the left:
8 Q. And I think you said When the other car started
9 turning, you recognized the danger, and you started
braking hard. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
24 Q. Besides braking, did you swerve your steering
25 Wheel t0 one side 0r the other?
1 A. No. I just stayed 0n the steering wheel. I
2 didn't steer t0 one side 0r the other.
3 Q. Were there any cars t0 your immediate left that
4 would have prevented you from swerving t0 your left to
5 avoid this accident?
6 A. N0. There were only cars behind me, but there
Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 2
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
DESIGNATION
0526771613.1
7 weren't cars next to me.
8 Q. So Why didn't you swerve t0 the left, as it
9 appeared as though you weren't gonna be able to stop in
10 time?
11 A. No. I stayed in the same lane. I just stayed
12 there.
(Plaintiff deposition, page 15, lines 8-11 and page 16, lines 1-12.)
23 Q. And I think you said that the front 0f your van
24 struck the rear part of the crossing car. Is that a
25 true statement?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And, in fact, it was the right passenger
3 headlight area 0n the van that came in contact With the
4 other car.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And the area that you struck 0n the crossing
7 car was 0n the passenger's side behind the passenger
8 rear wheel or tire. Is that correct?
9 A. At the back of the tire.
(Plaintiff deposition, page 16, lines 23 - page 17, line 9.)
Given plaintiff s admission that he saw the danger, had enough time to brake but failed to
swerve (even though there was no traffic t0 his left that would have prevented him from
swerving) AND the point 0f impact was t0 plaintiff s front RIGHT corner to Defendant’s LEFT
REAR tire, had plaintiff swerved, this accident could very well have been avoided.
Plaintiffs own statements create a “question of fact” as t0 the response of Plaintiff t0 the
hazard that he perceived and Whether his response to that hazard was reasonable under the
circumstances.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant has raised a “genuine issue 0f
material fact” relating t0 the plaintiff s comparative negligence AND the liability 0f the
Responsible Third Party for allowing an unlicensed driver to drive a company vehicle, Plaintiffs
Motion t0 Strike the Responsible Third Party Designation must be denied. Defendant prays that
Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 3
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
DESIGNATION
0526771613.1
the Court DENY Plaintiffs motion, and grant such further legal and equitable relief as the Court
may feel just under these circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
SUSAN L. FLORENCE & ASSOCIATES
gw/ d MWV‘
SCOTT A. WHITCOMB
TBN: 24053546
1201 Elm Street, Suite 5050
Dallas, TX 75270
DallasLegal@allstate.com
(214) 659-4325
(877) 678-4763 (fax)
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DAYAKAR PINDI
UNSWORN DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. WHITCOMB
My name is Scott A. Whitcomb, my Texas State Bar Number is 24053546, and
my work address is 1201 Elm Street, Suite 5050, Dallas, TX 75270-2104. The attachment to this
pleading is a true and correct copy 0f the Deposition Transcript 0f Alfonso Lara, taken on May
20, 2020. This declaration is made, as permitted by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
§132.001, in lieu of a notarized sworn statement. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Collin County, State 0f Texas, on the 17th day of September, 2020.
Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 4
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
DESIGNATION
0526771613.1
gw/ d MWV‘
SCOTT A. WHITCOMB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing has been served in compliance
with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 0n the 17th day 0f September, 2020,
to:
Sabrina L. Galvan
Hernandez & Browning
16850 Dallas Parkway
Dallas, Texas 75248
(972) 234—7802 Telephone
(972) 982-7349 Telecopy
sabrina@juanlaw.com Email
Attorney for Plaintiff
flWf/d Mink
SCOTT A. WHITCOMB
Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 5
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
DESIGNATION
0526771613.1
EXHIBIT A
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 6
Page l
CAUSE NO. DC—l9—13584
ALFONSO LARA, : IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, '
VS. : l6OTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DAYAKAR PINDI, :
Defendant. : DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S
REMOTE ORAL DEPOSITION OF
ALFONSO LARA
MAY 20, 2020
VOLUME l OF l
REMOTE ORAL DEPOSITION OF ALFONSO LARA,
produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant,
and duly sworn, was taken in the above styled and
numbered cause on May 20, 2020, from 9:14 to 10:53 a.m.,
before Vonda P. Treat, CSR No. 2584, in and for the
State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at
Hernandez & Browning, 16850 Dallas Parkway, Dallas,
Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Twelfth Emergency Order Regarding the COVID—l9 State
of Disaster, Paragraphs 3.b. and c., and the provisions
stated on the record or attached hereto.
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 7
Page lO
A. It‘s valid. It‘s just that it‘s expired.
Q. Okay. So, in other words, at the time of the
accident, your driver‘s license did not allow you to
permissibly drive in the State of Texas because it had
expired. Is that correct?
A. Uh—huh. Yes.
Q. Did Exterior export -- Experts know that you
did not have a non—expired driver‘s license at the time
of this accident?
lO A. Yes.
ll Q. And as far as you knew, they permitted you to
12 drive on an expired driver's license.
l3 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Let‘s talk about this accident, if we
15 could. It‘s my understanding the accident happened on
16 December 4, 2018. Does that date sound about right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And about what time of day did the accident
19 occur?
20 A. I don‘t remember very well because it‘s already
21 been a long time, but it was like 7:00 or 7:30 in the
22 afternoon.
23 Q. Was it still light out at that time of day, or
24 was it dark?
25 A. It was a little bit dark already.
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 8
Page 15
distorted.
MR. WHITCOMB: Can you ask him to repeat
his full answer so we can get it fully interpreted for
the record, then, please?
THE INTERPRETER: Yeah.
A. I mean, I can‘t say what distance there was
because it was really fast. I don't
Q. And I think you said when the other car started
turning, you recognized the danger, and you started
lO braking hard. Is that correct?
ll A. Yes.
12 Q. When you braked hard, did you skid on the
l3 roadway at all?
14 A. Well, it didn‘t really skid. It's just that
15 the van is always loaded. It didn‘t —— it didn‘t -- it
16 didn‘t stop right away. I mean, I hit the brakes hard,
17 but I —— I —— I didn‘t stop.
18 Q. And as the turn ——
19 A. The distance was too short.
20 Q. Got it.
21 Did you swerve the steering wheel ——
22 (Reporter clarification of audio
23 disruption.)
24 Q. Besides braking, did you swerve your steering
25 wheel to one side or the other?
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 9
Page l6
A. No. I just stayed on the steering wheel. I
didn‘t steer to one side or the other.
Q. Were there any cars to your immediate left that
would have prevented you from swerving to your left to
avoid this accident?
A. No. There were only cars behind me, but there
weren‘t cars next to me.
Q. So why didn‘t you swerve to the left, as it
appeared as though you weren‘t gonna be able to stop in
lO time?
ll A. No. I stayed in the same lane. I just stayed
12 there.
l3 Q. I understand that. But why didn‘t you swerve
14 since that was an option to avoid this accident?
15 A. Well, like I said, I mean, it was really fast.
16 It wasn‘t something that I saw from far away. I mean,
17 he just crossed in front of me.
18 Q. If you had enough time to brake and slightly
19 slow your vehicle, wouldn't that have been enough time
20 to swerve your vehicle also?
21 MS. GALVAN: Objection, form.
22 A. No, I didn‘t have time.
23 Q. And I think you said that the front of your van
24 struck the rear part of the crossing car. Is that a
25 true statement?
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 10
Page l7
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, it was the right passenger
headlight area on the van that came in contact with the
other car.
A. Yes.
Q. And the area that you struck on the crossing
car was on the passenger‘s side behind the passenger
rear wheel or tire. Is that correct?
A. At the back of the tire.
lO Q. As a result of your striking the other car, did
ll the other car move on the roadway, like spin or turn?
12 A. No, it did not spin around. It‘s just that
l3 where he came across, there is a golf course over there;
14 and it was at the entrance of —— of —— of the golf
15 course. So he went in there to the entrance of the golf
16 course.
17 Q. As a result of the impact, was your van moved
18 at all from its anticipated path of travel?
19 A. No. It didn‘t -- it didn‘t go off. It just
20 ended up like a little bit across, but it was right
21 there on the same road.
22 Q. As -- first of all, do you have an estimate of
23 your van‘s speed at the time of the impact with the
24 other car?
25 A. For example —— well, I said that. I mean,
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 11
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Scott Whitcomb
Bar No. 24053546
swhim@allstate.com
Envelope ID: 46322999
Status as of 9/17/2020 3:13 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
SABRINA LGALVAN sabrina@juanlaw.com 9/17/2020 11:08:34 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 9/17/2020 11:08 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Darling Tellez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC- 1 9- 1 3584 ALFONSO LARA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, VS. 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAYAKAR PINDI, Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION DAYAKAR PINDI, hereinafter referred to as Defendant, whether one or more, files this DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION, and respectfully shows the Court the following: After granting a Motion to Designate a Responsible Third Party, a party may move the strike the designation 0n the ground that these is no evidence regarding that person’s responsibility for any portion of the claimant’s alleged injury or damage. “The Court shall grant the motin t0 strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence t0 raise a genuine issue 0f fact regarding the designated person’s responsibility for the claimant’s injury 0r damage.” (CPRC 33.004(l). ) Plaintiff has now moved to strike the RTP designation. A11 defendant must do is “raise a genuine issue of fact” regarding that person’s responsibility t0 defeat the motion. Initially, it is pointed out that Plaintiff was unlicensed at the time of the accident, and that Plaintiff’s employer (the designated Responsible Third Party) was aware 0f that fact: Q. Okay. So, in other words, at the time of the accident, your driver's license did not allow you to permissibly drive in the State of Texas because it had OOQQUI-bUJN expired. Is that correct? A. Uh-huh. Yes. Q. Did Exterior export -- Experts know that you did not have a non-expired driver's license at the time Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 1 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION 0526771613.1 9 0f this accident? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And as far as you knew, they permitted you to 12 drive 0n an expired driver's license. 13 A. Yes. Deposition of Alfonso Lara, page 10, lines 2-13. T0 establish a cause 0f action for negligent entrustment, Defendant must show that: (1) the owner entrusted the vehicle, (2) to an unlicensed, incompetent or reckless driver, (3) whom the owner knew 0r should have known was unlicensed, incompetent 0r reckless, (4) that the driver was negligent 0n the occasion in question, and (5) that the driver’s negligence proximately caused the accident. Soodeen V. Rychel, 802 S.W.2d 361 (TeX.App.-Houston(1st/Dist) 1990. Plaintiff’ s own testimony established that he was an unlicensed driver and the owner knew that he was unlicensed at the time. The only “prong” missing is Defendant raising a genuine issue 0f material fact t0 support the negligence of Plaintiff. This is an accident that occurred When Defendant was making a left turn across plaintiff” s path of travel. Plaintiff testified that although he saw the oncoming Defendant vehicle, he recognized the danger, but failed t0 swerve t0 the left, even though there was no traffic in the lane to his left that would have prevented him from swerving to the left: 8 Q. And I think you said When the other car started 9 turning, you recognized the danger, and you started braking hard. Is that correct? 11 A. Yes. 24 Q. Besides braking, did you swerve your steering 25 Wheel t0 one side 0r the other? 1 A. No. I just stayed 0n the steering wheel. I 2 didn't steer t0 one side 0r the other. 3 Q. Were there any cars t0 your immediate left that 4 would have prevented you from swerving t0 your left to 5 avoid this accident? 6 A. N0. There were only cars behind me, but there Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 2 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION 0526771613.1 7 weren't cars next to me. 8 Q. So Why didn't you swerve t0 the left, as it 9 appeared as though you weren't gonna be able to stop in 10 time? 11 A. No. I stayed in the same lane. I just stayed 12 there. (Plaintiff deposition, page 15, lines 8-11 and page 16, lines 1-12.) 23 Q. And I think you said that the front 0f your van 24 struck the rear part of the crossing car. Is that a 25 true statement? 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And, in fact, it was the right passenger 3 headlight area 0n the van that came in contact With the 4 other car. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And the area that you struck 0n the crossing 7 car was 0n the passenger's side behind the passenger 8 rear wheel or tire. Is that correct? 9 A. At the back of the tire. (Plaintiff deposition, page 16, lines 23 - page 17, line 9.) Given plaintiff s admission that he saw the danger, had enough time to brake but failed to swerve (even though there was no traffic t0 his left that would have prevented him from swerving) AND the point 0f impact was t0 plaintiff s front RIGHT corner to Defendant’s LEFT REAR tire, had plaintiff swerved, this accident could very well have been avoided. Plaintiffs own statements create a “question of fact” as t0 the response of Plaintiff t0 the hazard that he perceived and Whether his response to that hazard was reasonable under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant has raised a “genuine issue 0f material fact” relating t0 the plaintiff s comparative negligence AND the liability 0f the Responsible Third Party for allowing an unlicensed driver to drive a company vehicle, Plaintiffs Motion t0 Strike the Responsible Third Party Designation must be denied. Defendant prays that Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 3 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION 0526771613.1 the Court DENY Plaintiffs motion, and grant such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may feel just under these circumstances. Respectfully submitted, SUSAN L. FLORENCE & ASSOCIATES gw/ d MWV‘ SCOTT A. WHITCOMB TBN: 24053546 1201 Elm Street, Suite 5050 Dallas, TX 75270 DallasLegal@allstate.com (214) 659-4325 (877) 678-4763 (fax) ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DAYAKAR PINDI UNSWORN DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. WHITCOMB My name is Scott A. Whitcomb, my Texas State Bar Number is 24053546, and my work address is 1201 Elm Street, Suite 5050, Dallas, TX 75270-2104. The attachment to this pleading is a true and correct copy 0f the Deposition Transcript 0f Alfonso Lara, taken on May 20, 2020. This declaration is made, as permitted by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §132.001, in lieu of a notarized sworn statement. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Collin County, State 0f Texas, on the 17th day of September, 2020. Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 4 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION 0526771613.1 gw/ d MWV‘ SCOTT A. WHITCOMB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing has been served in compliance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 0n the 17th day 0f September, 2020, to: Sabrina L. Galvan Hernandez & Browning 16850 Dallas Parkway Dallas, Texas 75248 (972) 234—7802 Telephone (972) 982-7349 Telecopy sabrina@juanlaw.com Email Attorney for Plaintiff flWf/d Mink SCOTT A. WHITCOMB Lara vs. Pindi PAGE 5 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY DESIGNATION 0526771613.1 EXHIBIT A Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 6 Page l CAUSE NO. DC—l9—13584 ALFONSO LARA, : IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, ' VS. : l6OTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAYAKAR PINDI, : Defendant. : DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S REMOTE ORAL DEPOSITION OF ALFONSO LARA MAY 20, 2020 VOLUME l OF l REMOTE ORAL DEPOSITION OF ALFONSO LARA, produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant, and duly sworn, was taken in the above styled and numbered cause on May 20, 2020, from 9:14 to 10:53 a.m., before Vonda P. Treat, CSR No. 2584, in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at Hernandez & Browning, 16850 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Twelfth Emergency Order Regarding the COVID—l9 State of Disaster, Paragraphs 3.b. and c., and the provisions stated on the record or attached hereto. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 7 Page lO A. It‘s valid. It‘s just that it‘s expired. Q. Okay. So, in other words, at the time of the accident, your driver‘s license did not allow you to permissibly drive in the State of Texas because it had expired. Is that correct? A. Uh—huh. Yes. Q. Did Exterior export -- Experts know that you did not have a non—expired driver‘s license at the time of this accident? lO A. Yes. ll Q. And as far as you knew, they permitted you to 12 drive on an expired driver's license. l3 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Let‘s talk about this accident, if we 15 could. It‘s my understanding the accident happened on 16 December 4, 2018. Does that date sound about right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And about what time of day did the accident 19 occur? 20 A. I don‘t remember very well because it‘s already 21 been a long time, but it was like 7:00 or 7:30 in the 22 afternoon. 23 Q. Was it still light out at that time of day, or 24 was it dark? 25 A. It was a little bit dark already. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 8 Page 15 distorted. MR. WHITCOMB: Can you ask him to repeat his full answer so we can get it fully interpreted for the record, then, please? THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. A. I mean, I can‘t say what distance there was because it was really fast. I don't Q. And I think you said when the other car started turning, you recognized the danger, and you started lO braking hard. Is that correct? ll A. Yes. 12 Q. When you braked hard, did you skid on the l3 roadway at all? 14 A. Well, it didn‘t really skid. It's just that 15 the van is always loaded. It didn‘t —— it didn‘t -- it 16 didn‘t stop right away. I mean, I hit the brakes hard, 17 but I —— I —— I didn‘t stop. 18 Q. And as the turn —— 19 A. The distance was too short. 20 Q. Got it. 21 Did you swerve the steering wheel —— 22 (Reporter clarification of audio 23 disruption.) 24 Q. Besides braking, did you swerve your steering 25 wheel to one side or the other? Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 9 Page l6 A. No. I just stayed on the steering wheel. I didn‘t steer to one side or the other. Q. Were there any cars to your immediate left that would have prevented you from swerving to your left to avoid this accident? A. No. There were only cars behind me, but there weren‘t cars next to me. Q. So why didn‘t you swerve to the left, as it appeared as though you weren‘t gonna be able to stop in lO time? ll A. No. I stayed in the same lane. I just stayed 12 there. l3 Q. I understand that. But why didn‘t you swerve 14 since that was an option to avoid this accident? 15 A. Well, like I said, I mean, it was really fast. 16 It wasn‘t something that I saw from far away. I mean, 17 he just crossed in front of me. 18 Q. If you had enough time to brake and slightly 19 slow your vehicle, wouldn't that have been enough time 20 to swerve your vehicle also? 21 MS. GALVAN: Objection, form. 22 A. No, I didn‘t have time. 23 Q. And I think you said that the front of your van 24 struck the rear part of the crossing car. Is that a 25 true statement? Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 10 Page l7 A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, it was the right passenger headlight area on the van that came in contact with the other car. A. Yes. Q. And the area that you struck on the crossing car was on the passenger‘s side behind the passenger rear wheel or tire. Is that correct? A. At the back of the tire. lO Q. As a result of your striking the other car, did ll the other car move on the roadway, like spin or turn? 12 A. No, it did not spin around. It‘s just that l3 where he came across, there is a golf course over there; 14 and it was at the entrance of —— of —— of the golf 15 course. So he went in there to the entrance of the golf 16 course. 17 Q. As a result of the impact, was your van moved 18 at all from its anticipated path of travel? 19 A. No. It didn‘t -- it didn‘t go off. It just 20 ended up like a little bit across, but it was right 21 there on the same road. 22 Q. As -- first of all, do you have an estimate of 23 your van‘s speed at the time of the impact with the 24 other car? 25 A. For example —— well, I said that. I mean, Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike Responsible Third Party Designation Page 11 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Scott Whitcomb Bar No. 24053546 swhim@allstate.com Envelope ID: 46322999 Status as of 9/17/2020 3:13 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status SABRINA LGALVAN sabrina@juanlaw.com 9/17/2020 11:08:34 AM SENT