Sievers

Sievers v. Hill CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 2014C073413California3,484 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 9/17/14 Sievers v. Hill CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer) ----

MARISA SIEVERS, C073413

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SCV-0030233)

v.

VIOLET HILL,

Defendant and Respondent.

Defendant Violet Hill injured plaintiff Marisa Sievers in a car accident. The jury awarded Sievers $2,175.27 in medical damages, but no general damages for pain and suffering. Sievers appeals from the judgment and the order denying her motion for a new trial. She contends the verdict is inadequate as a matter of law; it was error not to dismiss Juror No. 2; and it was error to allow Hill to testify that she was not injured in the accident. As we will explain, we find no prejudicial error and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.