Motion-Secondary: BRIAN MAHAFFEY, ET AL -V- RICHARD WILSON, ET AL Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Robert Weinstein, Esq. [Bar No. 140412]
     ROBERT S. WEINSTEIN & ASSOC.
     12401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200                                                  ExiroRN
                                                                         superior offreBERNARDING
     Los Angeles, California 90025
                                                                           COUNTY OF a
                                                                                         on ID   DISTRICT
     T: (310) 277-7762
      1039 S, Palm Canyon Drive                                                  APk 65 202
     Palm Springs, California 92264
     T: (760) 797-5502
     Weinsteinlaw] 00@aol.com
                                                                                 GREG TREHART, OEPIITV
     lan Herzog, Esq. [Bar No. 41396]
     HERZOG, YUHAS, EHRLICH & ARDELL
     A Professional Corporation
     11400 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1150
     Los Angeles, California 90064
     Telephone: (310) 458-6660
10   Facsimile : (310) 458-9065
     herzog@ix.netcom.com
1

12   Attorneys for Plaintiffs
     BRIAN MAHAFFEY & ASHLEY MAHAFFEY
13
                                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
14
                                      COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - CENTRAL
15

16   BRIAN MAHAFFEY and ASHLEY                            CASE NO. CIVDS1908657
     MAHAFFEY,
17                                                        [Assigned to Hon. Corey G. Lee, Dept. S15]
                        Plaintiffs,
18
                                                          PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
19   vs.                                                  DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10
                                                          FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF
20   RICHARD WILSON; JOSE MEDINA;                         APPRAISAL OR REPAIR COST
     COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba
21   COLORAMA;           and DOES | through 100,           DATE:        April 6, 2023
     Inclusive.                                            TIME :       9:00 a.m.
22
                                                           PLACE:       Dept S15
23                      Defendants.
                                                           DATE FILED         March 21, 2019
24                                                         TRIAL DATE         April 10, 2023

25
26

27

28                                                       -1-
                             PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10
                             FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF APPRAISAL OR REPAIR COST

      4892-0774-2299, v. 1
1              DEFENDSNTS       OFFER     NO      BASIS    FOR   EXCLUDING        EVIDENCE       AS TO

                            THE DAMAGES TO AND COST OF REPAIR OF HIS VEHICLE

             Brian Mahaffey suffered head trauma, mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and post concussive

     syndrome with PTSD and multiple orthopedic injuries when a Colorama driver, Jose Medina, ran a red
     light at a T-intersection.

             So far as the undersigned knows, repair estimates or appraisals are routinely offered and
     admitted in auto cases as evidence of the damage inflicted.
                     In an action for damage to property, evidence of the original cost is
                     generally admissible,' as is evidence of the cost of repair.? However,
                     evidence of the cost of repair is not admissible unless it is shown that the
10                   repair was necessary to restore the property to its former condition
                     [IIA     Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice § 429:20]
11

12           The extent of damage to both vehicles involved in the accident is indicative of the force of the

13   collision. Since it would be perfectly acceptable for jurors to see the conditions of the respective

14   vehicles, it can hardly be inappropriate for them to know the extent of repairs required, or if the

15   vehicle was rented a total loss.

16               Implicit in the request for exclusion is the fear that they did jury will appreciate the force of the

17   crash given the extent of injury to the Colorama vehicle. While this may be unfavorable to the

18   defendants, unfavorable is not the same as prejudicial.           Defendants have not identified any effect that

19   the appraisals might have except those which are relevant to the issues to be decided by the jury.

20               The motion should accordingly be denied.

21

22   DATED:         April 3, 2023                         HERZOG, YUHAS, EHRLICH & ARDELL,
                                                         A Professional Corporation
23
                                                                           /S/ Ian Herzog
24                                                       By:
                                                                   IAN HERZOG
25
                                                                   ROBERT WEINSTEIN
26                                                                 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRIAN MAHAFFEY and
                                                                   ASHLEY MAHAFFEY
27

28                                                              -2-
                             PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10
                             FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF APPRAISAL OR REPAIR COST

     4892-0774-2299, v. 1