Vargas v. Baca

Filed 1/23/07  Vargas v. Baca CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUANITA P. VARGAS,                                                         H029409

                        Plaintiff and Appellant,                                 (Santa Clara County

                                                                                                 Superior Court

            v.                                                                                 No. 1-01-CV 798933)

CHRISTOPHER TODD BACA,

                        Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________________/

            Plaintiff Juanita P. Vargas brought a negligence action against defendant Christopher Todd Baca relating to a June 2000 vehicle collision.  The jury found both plaintiff and defendant negligent and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $292.05.  Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and contends that the court erred in denying her motion to exclude a videotaped deposition of defendant's expert and in denying her request to present a rebuttal expert.  We find no error and affirm the judgment.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              I.                      Background

            On June 8, 2000, plaintiff and defendant were involved in a vehicle collision.  Defendant, driving a Volkswagen Jetta, exited a bank driveway onto Blossom Hill Road.  He attempted to turn left, westbound, across three eastbound lanes.  Defendant crossed the first two lanes by inching between cars that were stopped for a light rail crossing.  As he crossed the third eastbound lane, plaintiff's Chevrolet Suburban broadsided his vehicle.  Because of the back-up of cars in the first two lanes, neither driver saw the other until it was too late to avoid collision. 

            Plaintiff claimed injuries resulting from the accident, including pain in her neck, feet, and back, bruises on her knees, and a mark on her sternum.  Plaintiff sought $7,590.95 in medical expenses, $1,092.40 for chiropractic treatment, and lost wages in the amount of $21,020.00.

            Both parties presented witnesses.  Rudy Degger, an accident reconstruction expert, testified for defendant via a videotaped deposition.  Degger reviewed photographs of the vehicles involved in the accident, the police report, repair estimates for the vehicles, and a transcript of plaintiff's deposition.  He also spoke with defendant about the accident and obtained vehicle specifications for both the Jetta and the Suburban.  Degger concluded that the change in velocity experienced by plaintiff's vehicle during the accident was between 2.2 and 4 miles per hour.  He concluded that at this level of velocity change it is highly unlikely that an occupant of the Suburban would have sustained any neck injury, and even more unlikely that he or she would have sustained a lower back injury. 

            Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for negligence in June 2001.  Trial was first set for May 19, 2003, but the trial date was continued multiple times due to, among other things, the plaintiff's health and the unavailability of witnesses.  The jury trial ultimately was set for, and commenced on, June 6, 2005.  The jury returned a special verdict, finding $531.00 in total damages and concluding that plaintiff was 45 percent responsible for her harm.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                II.                    Discussion

A.                                Motion to Exclude Videotaped Testimony

            On May 12, 2005, defendant's counsel informed plaintiff's counsel that defendant's reconstruction expert, Degger, was not available to testify on the June trial dates.  To avoid a further continuance, counsel requested permission to conduct a videotaped deposition of Degger prior to trial and to introduce the videotape as Degger's trial testimony.  Plaintiff objected and defendant filed and served an ex parte application for leave to take the deposition within 15 days of trial.  After a hearing attended by both counsel, the court (the Honorable James P. Kleinberg presiding) granted the request for leave to take Degger's deposition on May 26, 2005 â€