Monterrosa v. Broussard-Dawson CA2/7

Filed 12/15/14 Monterrosa v. Broussard-Dawson CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

JOSE A. MONTERROSA, B247033

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC056003) v.

AMY SELENA BROUSSARD-DAWSON, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rhonda Rosales, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Cleidin Z. Atanous, Cleidin Z. Atanous and Michelle L. Villarreal for Defendants and Appellants.

Steven B. Stevens; The Vartazarian Law Firm and Steven R. Vartazarian for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

In October 2010, Jose Monterrosa (plaintiff) was driving on the freeway in Long Beach when he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Amy Selena Broussard-Dawson (Amy). Plaintiff sustained injuries and was taken to the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center. Plaintiff was treated thereafter by Dr. Asad Michael Moheimani, an orthopedic surgeon. In May 2011, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Amy and her husband Robert Dawson (Robert) for injuries he sustained. A jury trial commenced on September 4, 2012. The jury found Amy was negligent and awarded plaintiff damages of $163,359.55. Amy and Robert (collectively referred to as defendants) appealed, contending the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff to present a video animation of how his head was injured. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prior to trial, plaintiff’s counsel proposed to introduce into evidence a video to depict a closed-head trauma and brain injury. Counsel described the video as follows: “It’s three minutes long and depicts a soft tissue head injury. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a moderate to severe concussion and my witness prepared an animation on top of what his words can’t do. I don’t have—if they have an issue, I believe it’s helpful to the jury to understand what the damages are.” Defendants’ counsel made a motion to exclude the video because it lacked foundation and showed much more than what Dr. Moheimani had testified to in his deposition. On September 4, 2012, the court ruled as follows: “You can show it. It’s really no different than a medical-legal drawing showing impact and movement of the skull because you went the extra step and made it more palatable to the jury. [¶] However, that last portion concerning the injury to the brain, you have to take that out. And also for the record, it’s all silent. Nobody is saying anything. If your client is going to testify this was the movement of his head, front movement, side movement, et cetera, and the doctor testifies it’s consistent with the findings, it’s admitted.” At trial, plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, Amy’s car hit his car from the rear, and plaintiff’s car then hit the car in front of him. Plaintiff said he hit his head on the inside of the car, describing the location of the impact as follows: “It has like a handle over here and part of that goes to the window and hit my head over the