ARAMBULA V. WELLS
72 Cal.App.4th 1006 (1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an evidentiary dispute over admissible evidence of lost
wages. Arambula (P) appealed an order, which granted Wells' (D) motion to exclude all
evidence and testimony regarding P's lost wages claim. P's wife also appealed an order upon
a jury verdict, that she was not entitled to damages for loss of consortium
FACTS: P was injured in a rear end collision. He was employed in a family owned business
in which he had 15% of the stock. P did not work but continued to get his $2,800 per week
salary. P testified that his brother who owned 70% of the stock wanted to be reimbursed for
these payments but P had not promised to do so. D admitted liability and contested causation
and damages. P alleged brain injuries. At the start of the trial, D moved in limine to
exclude all evidence regarding P's lost wages. The trial judge agreed and instructed the
jury not to award damages for lost earnings. P got the verdict but no lost wages. P
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment