Munroe v. City of Tracy
| Docket Number | C095177 |
| Decision Date | 24 May 2023 |
| Parties | CHRISTEN MUNROE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF TRACY et al., Defendants and Appellants |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Plaintiff Christen Munroe (Plaintiff) sued defendants Gustavo Cisneros and the City of Tracy (collectively Defendants) for negligence arising out of a traffic accident. She alleged that Cisneros, a police officer for the city, negligently backed into her car in a parking lot, and that the accident caused injuries to her neck. Defendants conceded Cisneros was negligent, and the jury found his negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries and awarded her $100,000 in past noneconomic damages and $175,000 in future noneconomic damages. Defendants appeal, arguing (1) there is not substantial evidence Plaintiff's injuries were caused by the accident; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Plaintiff to testify about her understanding of the results of a CT scan and an MRI of her neck; and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the award of future noneconomic damages. We disagree and thus affirm.
Because the primary issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict, we find it useful to preface our summary of the evidence with a reminder of the standard of review. (Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 634.) "[T]he testimony of a single witness can constitute substantial evidence." (Flores v. Liu (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 278, 296.) Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence shows the following.
The accident occurred on July 30, 2016, in a Walgreens parking lot. Cisneros was heading out of the parking lot when he noticed a car backing out of a parking stall. He stopped his car and put it in reverse in order to avoid the car that was backing out, and he ran into Plaintiff's car, which was behind him. He admits he did not look over his shoulder or in his rearview mirror, and that the accident was his fault.
According to Plaintiff, Cisneros quickly reversed and "slammed" into her car. She heard a "lot of noise," "glass breaking," and "metal grinding." She testified Cisneros's vehicle came "on top of" hers, and she heard a "large scraping sound" when he pulled his vehicle forward. During her deposition (portions of which were read at trial) she testified she heard her airbags pop, but they did not deploy. Although photos showed only slight visible damage to Plaintiff's car, she testified she took it to a body shop and they had to repair [¶] . . . She testified she viewed the car while it was in the body shop and
Plaintiff testified the impact of the accident caused her body to "move backwards" into her seat, and "my chin touched my chest." During her deposition, she testified she heard "a horrible crunching inside my neck" when the accident occurred. She testified the accident left her "shaken" and her "heart was thumping," but she "felt that everything would be fine," and she declined Cisneros's offer to call an ambulance. She went home, and later that evening her neck and her left ankle began to hurt. She had trouble sleeping that night, and the next morning she was She went to the emergency room (ER) that day because In the ER, they gave her a pill that helped her nausea, and they did a CT scan of her neck. Her understanding was that the CT scan showed her neck was not broken, but there appeared to be "some inflammation."
Following her visit to the ER, Plaintiff "laid in bed basically for five days and basically did nothing" due to the pain in her neck and her leg. She also had a headache and "the nausea kept coming back." She followed up with her primary care physician about a week later, who prescribed hydrocodone (a pain medication) and physical therapy. She had several physical therapy sessions but eventually stopped because they made her feel worse. The physical therapist gave her a neck brace, which helped her neck.
In or around October 2016, Plaintiff got an MRI, and her understanding is that the MRI showed "damage" to her neck. She was referred to a pain management specialist, who referred her for an epidural. She got the epidural in December 2016, but it did not get rid of the pain and it made her neck feel like it was "on fire." Not long after the epidural, she went back to the ER because The ER offered her more medication, but
Plaintiff testified she tried acupuncture for several weeks, which helped the pain in her ankle but not the pain in her neck. She also testified she saw a neurologist "because of the nerves and the tingling down the left side of my arm, and down into my foot into my toes." The neurologist referred her back to pain management, but she didn't want to just manage her pain, she wanted to get better.
Near the end of 2020, Plaintiff saw Dr. Ali Najafi. Dr. Najafi ordered another MRI, and it is her understanding that this MRI showed She testified she intended to have the surgery in the next six to 12 months.
Plaintiff testified that, prior to the accident, she had never injured her neck, and her physical health was She was active and engaged in daily exercise, including hiking and taking her dog on walks. Since the accident, the pain in her neck has not gone away. It is hard for her to sleep because "[t]he pain is excruciating." Prior to the accident, she regularly got a full eight hours or more of sleep a night; now she sleeps for "maybe two hours" at a time. Following the epidural, she started having spasms in her neck, and they "haven't stopped" and "have only increased in severity." She was asked during the trial whether she was experiencing neck pain while testifying, and she responded, "Very much so." She described the pain as "[a] burning, a constant jabbing and, of course, the forever-ending muscle spasms." She testified it is painful to look up and to move her neck from side to side. She testified the pain was "always there but I do have my good days and I have my bad days." On a good day, the pain is "minimal," and she has few, if any, muscle spasms; on a bad day, the pain is "horrific," she locks herself in her bedroom and prays that tomorrow will be better, and she is "mad at the whole world." The pain makes it harder to do daily activities like cooking, cleaning, driving, and bathing. Before the accident she testified she "used to prepare seven-course dinners in the blink of an eye," but "that doesn't happen" anymore. Before the accident, she used to be able to clean her house in one day, but now she feels "lucky" if she can clean her bathroom in one afternoon or sweep one room in her house.
Plaintiff's neighbor, Faye, testified at the trial. Faye had known Plaintiff "for a good amount of time" before the accident. She testified that, before the accident, she never observed that Plaintiff had any complaints about her neck, and Plaintiff was After the accident, Faye noticed a change in Plaintiff's mood, demeanor, and physical abilities. "[S]he was not able . . . to get out and be expressive, be the people person that she was." She needed assistance getting into a car. "[S]he was not able to . . . get food and stuff to eat," and Faye would either drive Plaintiff places or Plaintiff would have her food delivered. Faye accompanied Plaintiff to two or three doctor's appointments, including the epidural appointment.
By the time the case was submitted to the jury, Plaintiff sought only noneconomic damages for pain and suffering,[1] and Defendants admitted Cisneros was negligent and that his negligence caused the accident. The jury was thus asked to decide only two questions: (1) Was Cisneros's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff? (2) If yes, what are Plaintiff's past and future noneconomic damages? The jury answered "yes" to the first question and awarded Plaintiff $100,000 in past noneconomic damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial