David v. Hernandez

Trial court properly excluded defense expert’s proposed testimony that plaintiff was under the influence of marijuana at the time of auto accident at issue, since hospital tests did not indicate an active concentration of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in plaintiff’s blood when he was hospitalized after the accident.  The trial court did not err in excluding expert testimony about THC residue in plaintiff’s blood when he was hospitalized after the vehicular accident giving rise to the suit.  The laboratory blood test taken of plaintiff in the hospital did not indicate the concentration of active THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in plaintiff’s blood so there was no reasonable basis for the expert’s proposed testimony that plaintiff was impaired at the time of the accident.  On the other hand, there was substantial evidence to support an award of damages for three shoulder surgeries over plaintiff’s lifetime to replace parts of the prosthetic shoulder that was implanted to replace the shoulder damaged in the accident.  Plaintiff’s doctors testified that the prosthesis would wear out and likely have to be replaced after about 15 years.  Given plaintiff’s age and life expectancy, three future surgeries to replace the worn-out prosthesis were therefore likely to be needed.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 (Yegan, J.); July 25, 2017; 2017 WL 3141173

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s