On January 31, 2013 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Investment Concepts Inc,
Summerridge 121 Lp,
Perez, Lorena Ann,
and
Investment Concepts Inc,
Liberty Landscaping, Inc,
Summerridge 121 Lp,
for PI personal injury not MV
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Sl1PEf21 3R CQcJ x
i
LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J U j F 1 t t E OF fIP
1 MCDONOUGH SAN BE
r
t s a E yf
a i J
7gpt Ci ui T CT
Dirk E Silva SBN 134135
2 P O Box 51457 3633 E Inland Empire Boulevard Suite 450 SE 1 7 2015
Ontario CA 91764
3 3
Telephone 909 890 4667 f
x
Y V
Facsimile 909 890 4208 G Yy
4
5 Attorneys for Defendant Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
g
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CENTRAL
10
Case No CIVVS 1300296
11 LORENA ANN PEREZ Complaint filed January 31 2013
Assigned to Hon Pamela Preston King
12 Plaintiff Dept S32
13 v
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO 4
14 SUMMER RIDGE APARTMENTS et al
DECLARATION OF DIRK E SILVA
15 Defendants TRIAL DATE August 3 2015
16
SUMMERRIDGE 121 LP dba SUMMER
17 RIDGE APARTMENTS and 1NVESTMENT
CONCEPTS INC
18
Cross complainants
19
v
20
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC and ROES 1
21 through 10 inclusive
22 Cross Defendants
23
Defendant Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC LLI hereby moves this
24
Court for an order precluding Plaintiff LORENA ANN PEREZ Plaintiff or any other lay witness
25
from testifying that the subject accident caused her injuries in the courtroom during trial
26
27
I
2g
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO 4
1
INTRODUCTION
2
Plaintiff is a 39 year old resident of Victorville California She claims personal injury
3
following a slip and fall accident on ice that occurred on February 3 2011 in Victorville California at
4
the Summer Ridge Apartments owned and managed by Defendant Cross Complainant
5
SUMMERRIDGE 121 LP dba SUMMER RIDGE APARTMENTS and INVESTMENT
6
CONCEPTS INC SUMMERRIDGE LLI was on site at Summer Ridge Apartments one day
per week in order to perform landscape maintenance services
g
It is anticipated that Plaintiff or her lay witnesses may testify as to the cause diagnosis and
9
need for treatment of her injuries Such testimony is improper and LLI requests that the Court grant
10
this motion in limine
11
POINTS AUTHORITIES
12
AnY evidence re garding causation diagnosis and need for treatment of anY inJ ur Y is pro Perl Y
13
the province of inedical personnel not Plaintiff or any other lay witness Plaintiff lacks the requisite
14
expertise to testify regarding both the nature and extent of her alleged injuries or causation
15
Evidence Code Section 702 720
16
A Plaintiff cannot recover damages based upon speculation or even a mere possibility that
1
the wrongful conduct of the Defendant caused the harm Evidence of causation must rise to the level
1g 4tn
of a reasonable probability based upon competent evidence Williams v Wraxall 33 Cal App
19
120 133 1995 In the context of personal injury cases competent evidence is medical expert
20
testimony In California causation must be founded upon expert testimony and cannot be inferred
21
from the jury s consideration of the totality of the circumstances unless those circumstances include
22 4th
the requisite expert testimony on causation Cottle v Superior Court 3 Cal App 1367 1385
23
1992 The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a
24
reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert
testimony Id at 1384 Based on this
25
authority the Court should not permit Plaintiff or any other lay witness to testify about the cause of
26
the Plaintiff s injuries or a current medical condition
27
2
28
LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO 4
Document Filed Date
September 17, 2015
Case Filing Date
January 31, 2013
Category
PI personal injury not MV
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Sl1PEf21 3R CQcJ x i LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J U j F 1 t t E OF fIP 1 MCDONOUGH SAN BE r t s a E yf a i J 7gpt Ci ui T CT Dirk E Silva SBN 134135 2 P O Box 51457 3633 E Inland Empire Boulevard Suite 450 SE 1 7 2015 Ontario CA 91764 3 3 Telephone 909 890 4667 f x Y V Facsimile 909 890 4208 G Yy 4 5 Attorneys for Defendant Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA g 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CENTRAL 10 Case No CIVVS 1300296 11 LORENA ANN PEREZ Complaint filed January 31 2013 Assigned to Hon Pamela Preston King 12 Plaintiff Dept S32 13 v LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO 4 14 SUMMER RIDGE APARTMENTS et al DECLARATION OF DIRK E SILVA 15 Defendants TRIAL DATE August 3 2015 16 SUMMERRIDGE 121 LP dba SUMMER 17 RIDGE APARTMENTS and 1NVESTMENT CONCEPTS INC 18 Cross complainants 19 v 20 LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC and ROES 1 21 through 10 inclusive 22 Cross Defendants 23 Defendant Cross Defendant LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC LLI hereby moves this 24 Court for an order precluding Plaintiff LORENA ANN PEREZ Plaintiff or any other lay witness 25 from testifying that the subject accident caused her injuries in the courtroom during trial 26 27 I 2g LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO 4 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff is a 39 year old resident of Victorville California She claims personal injury 3 following a slip and fall accident on ice that occurred on February 3 2011 in Victorville California at 4 the Summer Ridge Apartments owned and managed by Defendant Cross Complainant 5 SUMMERRIDGE 121 LP dba SUMMER RIDGE APARTMENTS and INVESTMENT 6 CONCEPTS INC SUMMERRIDGE LLI was on site at Summer Ridge Apartments one day per week in order to perform landscape maintenance services g It is anticipated that Plaintiff or her lay witnesses may testify as to the cause diagnosis and 9 need for treatment of her injuries Such testimony is improper and LLI requests that the Court grant 10 this motion in limine 11 POINTS AUTHORITIES 12 AnY evidence re garding causation diagnosis and need for treatment of anY inJ ur Y is pro Perl Y 13 the province of inedical personnel not Plaintiff or any other lay witness Plaintiff lacks the requisite 14 expertise to testify regarding both the nature and extent of her alleged injuries or causation 15 Evidence Code Section 702 720 16 A Plaintiff cannot recover damages based upon speculation or even a mere possibility that 1 the wrongful conduct of the Defendant caused the harm Evidence of causation must rise to the level 1g 4tn of a reasonable probability based upon competent evidence Williams v Wraxall 33 Cal App 19 120 133 1995 In the context of personal injury cases competent evidence is medical expert 20 testimony In California causation must be founded upon expert testimony and cannot be inferred 21 from the jury s consideration of the totality of the circumstances unless those circumstances include 22 4th the requisite expert testimony on causation Cottle v Superior Court 3 Cal App 1367 1385 23 1992 The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a 24 reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony Id at 1384 Based on this 25 authority the Court should not permit Plaintiff or any other lay witness to testify about the cause of 26 the Plaintiff s injuries or a current medical condition 27 2 28 LIBERTY LANDSCAPING INC S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO 4