This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury (Vehicular)
Auto v. Auto
Negligence

Woods v. Gamble

Published: Nov. 8, 2001 | Result Date: May 1, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV41619 Verdict –  $0

Judge

James W. Cook

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lawrence J. Winking


Defendant

Douglas D. Cullins
(Cullins & Grandy LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Milton E. Legome M.D.
(medical)

Charles F. Plemons Jr.
(technical)

Facts

This case involved an intersection accident that occurred on July 5, 1997 at approximately 8:00 a.m. at the
intersection of F and 6th Street in San Bernardino. The plaintiff was driving a 1991 Ford Ranger and it was
traveling southbound on F Street. Defendant Bertha Gamble was driving a 1990 Buick La Sabre traveling
westbound on 6th Street at the time of the accident. The speed limit for both vehicles was 35 mph. Each party
contended that they had a green light as they entered the intersection.
Plaintiff Woods testified at her deposition that the light turned green for her direction as she reached the cross-
walk and that she was going 25 mph at the time. The impact was moderate to heavy and the vehicles sustained
approximately $3,500 in property damage to each.

Settlement Discussions

The defendant received a defense verdict at the arbitration. The plaintiff demanded $30,000 at the mandatory settlement conference, but the defendant offered nothing.

Specials in Evidence

$12,767

Injuries

The plaintiff allegedly sustained soft-tissue injuries to her neck, shoulder, elbow and foot. She received medical treatment, but complained of residual injuries to her neck and back.

Result

On the second day of trial, during cross-examination, the plaintiffÆs testimony was completely different from her previous deposition testimony regarding the facts of the accident. After allegedly being impeached, the plaintiff was asked whether the previous testimony she gave under penalty of perjury was false testimony, to which she responded in the affirmative. The plaintiff admitted that her deposition testimony under penalty of perjury was false regarding how the accident occurred. Thereafter, the plaintiffÆs counsel asked for a recess and after returning to the courtroom, the plaintiff stipulated to a defense verdict. Judgment was then entered in favor of the defendant.


#110103

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390