Plaintiff Marla suffered injuries as a result of a collision between her car (a green Plymouth Voyager) and the one operated by Defendant Mark (a white turbo-charged, Ford Bronco). The ac

I need help turning this into a Trial Brief?
Marla v. Mark
FACTUAL SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff Marla suffered injuries as a result of a collision between her car (a
green Plymouth Voyager) and the one operated by Defendant Mark (a white
turbo-charged, Ford Bronco).
The accident occurred on January 10, 2020, at
approximately 1:35 a.m., as Marla was exiting the southbound I-405 freeway at
the Brookhurst Street off-ramp in Fountain Valley, California.
The police report indicates (and the investigating officer will accordingly
testify) that Marla, driving at 35 m.p.h., was decelerating on the offramp when
she saw a blue minivan, directly ahead of her, suddenly swerve wildly to the left.
In an instant, she understood why the minivan had swerved?a large cardboard
box was in the middle of her lane. Marla stepped on the brakes and brought the
Voyager to a screeching halt in front of the box.
The police report also states that the box, though Marla did not know it at
the time of the incident, contained a large desktop computer.
Eyewitnesses
reported that it fell off the bed of a red pick-up truck which was driving on the off-
ramp in front of the minivan.
While the pick-up truck’s owner has not yet been
identified, the police know that it carried Rhode Island license plates partially marked “147 MC”. The car directly behind Marla was Defendant Mark’s Bronco. Mark was driving at approximately 40 m.p.h. when Marla applied the brakes. Although Mark had left 10-15 feet of room between his car and Marla’s, he could not step on his brake soon enough to avoid striking Marla. The Bronco hit Marla’s car from behind. The posted speed limit on the off-ramp was 40 m.p.h.
Mark is an out-of-work diesel mechanic who had spent the evening with the local chapter of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle group playing cards at one of the member’s houses in a crime-ridden part of town. Marla spent the evening at Mario’s Bar and Grill, a local restaurant, participating in a charity auction to raise funds for underprivileged children. Upon interrogation by the police, some of Marla’s friends testified that Marla had been drinking before leaving and “kind of staggered” to her car.
Marla suffered back injuries and was treated by various medical
practitioners for over a year, with total medical expenses of $10,759.00.
She was treated by a chiropractor and a physical therapist for two years, with medical
expenses of $7,000.00.
She incurred the rest of her medical expenses
($3,759.00.00) obtaining an evaluation from an orthopedic surgeon.
Although
the pain has largely subsided, Marla still experiences daily back discomfort and
headaches.
Marla is suing Mark for her medical costs ($10,759.00) plus her pain and
suffering–continued back pain, headaches, insomnia, loss of concentration,
dizziness ($50,000.00).
She, therefore, seeks a total of $60,759.00.
Marla has
also sued, as a “DOE” Defendant, the unidentified driver of the pick-up truck. Marla’s suit against Mark and the Doe Defendant is based on common-
law negligence and Civil Code ? 1708.
Mark claims that he should not be responsible for the accident because it
resulted from Marla’s actions.
He also claims that other parties are either fully or
partly responsible for the accident.
In terms of Marla’s negligence claim against him, Mark argues that Marla
has not established all of the necessary elements of such a claim: 1) that he had
a duty of care toward Marla; 2) that his conduct breached that duty (that a
reasonably prudent person would have acted differently); 3) that his conduct was
the cause of Marla’s injuries; and 4) that, as a result of this conduct, Marla
suffered injuries.
In terms of Marla’s claimed damages, Mark points out that California law
provides that non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) must be
apportioned between all defendants in accordance with their proportion of fault.
However, no such provision is made for economic damages (e.g., medical
expenses, lost earnings, etc.)—each defendant found at fault is liable for the
entire amount of damages.
To back up his arguments relating to damages, Mark
cites California Civil Code ?? 1430, 1431.1, 1431.2, and 1432 as well as the case
of Evangelatos v. Superior Court
, 44 Cal.3d 1188 (1988) (particularly footnote 4
of the dissenting opinion). Mark also argues that plaintiff was treated excessively:
that the normal treatment time to recover from an accident such as that suffered
by Marla is six to eight weeks.
Mark will present expert testimony at trial to
support that claim. In response to Mark’s arguments regarding her damages, she cites the case of DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 Cal.4593 (1992)?which she claims refutes Mark’s reliance on Evangelatos.
CIVIL CODE ? 1708. DUTY TO AVOID INJURING PERSONS OR
PROPERTY
Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the
person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his rights.
CIVIL CODE ? 1430.
An obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right
created in favor of several persons, may be:
1. Joint;
2. Several; or,
3. Joint and several.
CIVIL CODE ? 1431. JOINT LIABILITY
An obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right created in favor of
several persons, is presumed to be joint, and not several, except as provided
in Section 1431.2, and except in the special cases mentioned in the title on
the interpretation of contracts. This presumption, in the case of a right, can be
overcome only by express words to the contrary.
Enacted 1872. Amended by initiative measure (Prop. 51), adopted June 3,
1986.

CIVIL CODE ? 1431.1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF
PURPOSE
The People of the State of California find and declare as follows:
(a) The legal doctrine of joint and several liability, also known as “the
deep pocket rule”, has resulted in a system of inequity and injustice that
has threatened financial bankruptcy of local governments, other public
agencies, private individuals and businesses and has resulted in higher
prices for goods and services to the public and in higher taxes to the
taxpayers.
(b) Some governmental and private defendants are perceived to have
substantial financial resources or insurance coverage and have thus
been included in lawsuits even though there was little or no basis for
finding them at fault. Under joint and several liability, if they are found to
share even a fraction of the fault, they often are held financially liable for
all the damage. The People–taxpayers and consumers alike –ultimately
pay for these lawsuits in the form of higher taxes, higher prices and
higher insurance premiums.
(c) Local governments have been forced to curtail some essential
police, fire and other protections because of the soaring costs of lawsuits
and insurance premiums.
Therefore, the People of the State of California declare that to remedy
these inequities, defendants in tort actions shall be held financially liable
in closer proportion to their degree of fault. To treat them differently is
unfair and inequitable.
The People of the State of California further declare that reforms in the
liability laws in tort actions are necessary and proper to avoid
catastrophic economic consequences for state and local governmental
bodies as well as private individuals and businesses.
Added by initiative measure (Prop. 51), adopted June 3, 1986
CIVIL CODE ? 1431.2. SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NON-ECONOMIC
DAMAGES
(a) In any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful
death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each
defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not
be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-
economic damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to
that defendant’s percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be
rendered against that defendant for that amount.
(b)
(1) For purposes of this section, the term “economic damages”
means objectively verifiable monetary losses including medical
expenses, loss of earnings, burial costs, loss of use of property,
costs of repair or replacement, costs of obtaining substitute
domestic services, loss of employment and loss of business or
employment opportunities.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “non-economic
damages” means subjective, non-monetary losses including, but
not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering,
emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.
Added by initiative measure (Prop. 51), adopted June 3, 1986.
? 1432. CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN JOINT PARTIES
Except as provided in Section 877 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to a
joint, or joint and several obligation, who satisfies more than his share of the
claim against all, may require a proportionate contribution from all the parties
joined with him.
Enacted 1872. Amended Stats 1987 ch 677 ?1.
CIVIL CODE ?1714. LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE OR TORT
— INJURIES AS RESULT OF FURNISHING ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES
(a) Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but
also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in
the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has,
willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself. The
extent of liability in such cases is defined by the Title on Compensatory Relief.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the holdings in cases such
as Vesely v. Sager (5 Cal. 3d 153), Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (16 Cal. 3d
313), and Coulter v. Superior Court (21 Cal. 3d 144) and to reinstate the prior
judicial interpretation of this section as it relates to proximate cause for
injuries incurred as a result of furnishing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated
person, namely that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate
cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of
alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another
by an intoxicated person.
(c) No social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person shall
be held legally accountable for damages suffered by such person, or for injury
to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the
consumption of such beverages.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.