In a special verdict, a jury found two defendant motorists were negligent but concluded only one of them was a substantial factor is causing injuries to a bicyclist on a sidewalk. Thus, only one of the defendants was held responsible for plaintiff’s personal injury verdict of $3,751,969 in damages. On appeal the defendant who was left on the hook claimed the verdict was inconsistent. The appellate court disagreed, holding the jury was entitled to conclud the other defendant only slightly exceeded a reasonable speed and was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries to plaintiff. The remaining defendant also argued on appeal that she is entitled to a new trial on damages because there was insufficient evidence of the reasonable value of the uninsured plaintiff’s medical bills. She contends plaintiff’s experts, who testified the medical bills were fair and reasonable, needed to do more to establish that their testimony was rooted in the “market value” of medical services. The appellate court rejected this argument, noting plaintiff’s experts testimony was based on the medical costs incurred as well as on the experts’ own experiences treating patients. (Bermudez v. Ciolek (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 20, 2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1311 [188 Cal.Rptr.3d 820].)$3,751,969 Personal Injury Verdict Affirmed.
In a special verdict, a jury found two defendant motorists were negligent but concluded only one of them was a substantial factor is causing injuries to a bicyclist on a sidewalk. Thus, only one of the defendants was held responsible for plaintiff’s personal injury verdict of $3,751,969 in damages. On appeal the defendant who was left on the hook claimed the verdict was inconsistent. The appellate court disagreed, holding the jury was entitled to conclud the other defendant only slightly exceeded a reasonable speed and was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries to plaintiff. The remaining defendant also argued on appeal that she is entitled to a new trial on damages because there was insufficient evidence of the reasonable value of the uninsured plaintiff’s medical bills. She contends plaintiff’s experts, who testified the medical bills were fair and reasonable, needed to do more to establish that their testimony was rooted in the “market value” of medical services. The appellate court rejected this argument, noting plaintiff’s experts testimony was based on the medical costs incurred as well as on the experts’ own experiences treating patients. (Bermudez v. Ciolek (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 20, 2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1311 [188 Cal.Rptr.3d 820].)