- In a car v. bicycle accident where plaintiff claimed he was riding his bicycle in the pedestrian cross walk and defendant attempting to make a right turn on a red light struck his bicycle. Defendant claimed that plaintiff was traveling west bound in the east bound lane of traffic and that defendant was not liable for the accident or injuries.
- In a auto v. pedestrian accident in the middle of the block, plaintiff claimed that defendant was inattentive in that she was driving in a school zone and should have used extra care. Defendant claimed a “dart out” from behind other cars parked on the street.
- In a reverse rear end accident where there was only minor damage to plaintiff’s vehicle, she claimed over $26,000 medical expense and another $25000 future medical care. Defendant claimed the force of impact could not have caused such severe injuries and that plaintiff over treated. Plaintiff was a young Middle Eastern woman. Although she came from a High Context Culture, she was raised in the United States and the Low Context Western Culture had been super imposed on the high context. Therefore we had to distinguish between the high and low context part of her psyche.
- In an intersection collision plaintiff claimed that defendant ran the red light and struck her car. Defendant claimed that his light was yellow when he entered the intersection and therefore plaintiff ran the red light. Defendant also claimed that based on the Howell case plaintiff’s damages should be reduced.
- In a rear end auto accident the issues of the case involved the severity of impact and the reasonableness of the medical expenses.
- In a rear end auto accident and injury to a young 12 year old girl, the issue was the value of pain and suffering and general damages when there is a possibility that she will not be able to participate in sports when she was very actively involved in sports prior to the accident.
- In an accident between a small sedan and a tanker trailer plaintiff claimed that defendant struck her car when he was attempting to change lanes. The accident caused injuries including a tear of the rotator cuff, impingement syndrome of the toe and disc protrusion in the cervical and lumbar spine. Defendant did not deny liability and the issue was the value of the case.
- In an accident involving a tractor trailer of defendant that struck the unoccupied parked asphalt paving vehicle of plaintiff causing total loss of the equipment and loss of income as a result of loss of use. Plaintiff claimed the defendant went over the fog line and struck the paver and defendant claimed that the paver protruded into the lanes of travel and there was no warning to alert the traffic.
- In a rear end accident case plaintiff claimed that defendant caused in excess of $10,000 damage to plaintiff’s car and that defendant admitted to being drunk and signed a paper to that effect. Defendant claimed that the accident was a minor impact and could not have caused the injuries to plaintiffs.
- In a case involving an automobile accident, plaintiff claimed that he was a passenger in a car that lost its brakes and struck a lamp post. Defendant claimed that the car was taken to plaintiff as a mechanic and plaintiff told the defendant to drive the car and therefore he was responsible for the accident.
- In an automobile accident involving a left turning vehicle, plaintiff’s car was considered a total loss with a value of in excess of $13,000. Plaintiff claimed injuries and loss of use in the amount of $9650 due to defendant carrier’s delay in the settling the property damage. Defendant admitted liability but argued the reasonableness of the loss of use and medical expenses.
- In an auto v. bicycle accident plaintiff claimed that defendant was negligent in exiting parking driveway and striking plaintiff causing injuries. Defendant claims that Defendant was traveling on the sidewalk in violation of the Vehicle Code and City Ordinance and therefore was negligent per se.
- In a red light/green light dispute plaintiff claimed soft tissue injuries to various parts of her body. Defendant admitted liability and argues excessive treatment.
- In a personal injury matter plaintiff claimed she had backed her car partially out of a parking space when she saw defendant, she stopped and honked her horn, but the defendant who was speaking on a Walkie-Talkie was not paying attention and struck plaintiff’s car.
- In a personal injury action involving rear end collision, defendant initially denied he was involved in an accident but later admitted it. Insurance company paid plaintiff his property damage and later put a stop on the property damage check. The offer was minimal and only the cost of defense. Plaintiff was Chinese and as such came from a high context culture. Consequently, if he had lost the case, it would cause him to lose face. It was important for him to win the case. The amount that he would win would be secondary as long as it would be a win for him.
- Dispute involving a two car collision where the plaintiff claimed defendant drove backwards into the plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff claimed defendant was working in the course and scope of his employment. Defendant claimed that defendant’s driver was not an employee of the defendant.
- Personal Injury – Rear end accident – Defendant claimed that plaintiff’s property damage and medical bills were inflated and they had evidence to show the same. Plaintiff claimed that he had a special package for the bumper on this car that cost a lot more than what the defendant was willing to allow. The special circumstance in that the defendant was Chinese and which is a high context culture. He required more time because people in high context cultures generally speak with caution and indirectly to avoid further conflicts. But it is important for them not to lose the case. Therefore it was important to have the defendant pay for Plaintiffs damages and at the same time to make sure that he would not lose face.
- In a wrongful death of an elderly Armenian man caused by a car vs. pedestrian, action was brought by his wife. Aside from the issues relating to the value of the case when an elderly retired man is involved, there was an issue of who would be the decision maker or the decision makers. The Armenian society is a high context culture and, therefore, the decisions will have to be made collectively. In fact all the decisions were made by the two sons and the son in law of the plaintiff.
