Najera v. Huerta
191 Cal. App. 4th 872
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- November 9, 2007 accident in Tulare County; Huerta's van entered intersection and collided with Najera's motorcycle, causing serious injuries.
- Trial evidence focused on nature of injuries and necessity of future medical treatment; damages included past and future medical expenses, wage loss, and future pain and suffering.
- Verdict: Najera awarded $728,703.83 total damages, with $45,908.83 past medical, $12,540 past wage loss, $480,855 future medical, $114,400 future wage loss, $75,000 future pain and suffering (no past pain and suffering).
- Judgment entered July 2, 2009.
- Posttrial motions: (a) defendant sought new trial on excessive future damages; (b) defendant sought to tax costs related to expert fees and prejudgment interest under § 998; trial court granted new trial on future damages and taxed those costs against plaintiff; plaintiff appealed and defendant cross-appealed but moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new-trial order on excessive future damages was an abuse of discretion. | Najera contends damages award for future medical and wage loss was excessive. | Huerta argues the award reflected the jury's assessment and should be revised for excessiveness. | No abuse; trial court affirmed new-trial on future damages. |
| Whether the cost-taxes under § 998 (expert fees and prejudgment interest) were proper. | Najera argues § 998 offer was made in good faith and costs should be recoverable. | Huerta asserts early 998 offer with insufficient discovery time was not in good faith. | No abuse; trial court did not err in taxing costs under § 998. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (reasonable and good-faith 998 offers govern recoverable costs; abuse standard for review)
- Barba v. Perez, 166 Cal.App.4th 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (early 998 offer with time to discover; good-faith evaluation discussed)
- Clark v. Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (reasonableness and good faith in 998 offers; abuse standard)
- Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (offeree must have fair chance to evaluate offer)
- Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 72 Cal.App.4th 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (need for opportunity to learn facts before accepting 998 offer)
- Arno v. Helinet Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 1019 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishes 998 practice and discovery timing)