Romero v. McClelland

Filed 3/20/06 Romero v. McClelland CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Vander Feer, Judge. Affirmed.

Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, Scott B. Spriggs and Marc S. Hurd for Defendant and Appellant.

Dale K. Galipo for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Norma Romero (Romero) sustained serious injuries when the vehicle she was driving was rear-ended by a motor home driven by Murray McClelland (McClelland). Romero filed a lawsuit against McClelland, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, McClelland admitted that he was negligent, after which the jury awarded Romero a total of $1,071,057.69 in damages. McClelland's motions for new trial and/or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) were denied. On appeal from the judgment, McClelland contends his posttrial motions should have been granted. The thrust of his argument is that the trial court erred in refusing to exclude or limit testimony from a family practice physician who he contends was not qualified to render an opinion regarding Romero's injuries and future treatment. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the damage awards. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The accident occurred on March 11, 2001, around 11:00 p.m., on Interstate Highway 15 near Barstow. McClelland was driving a 1997 Majestic Flyer motor home; Romero a 1993 Isuzu Trooper. McClelland, who was intoxicated, lost control of his vehicle, which struck Romero's vehicle from the rear, causing it to overturn several times before coming to rest on the side of the highway. Romero was seriously injured and was airlifted to the hospital. Two passengers in Romero's vehicle, including Romero's son, were taken by ambulance to a local hospital; neither is involved in this appeal.

Romero's action against McClelland was instituted in August 2001. Trial was held in November 2003.

A. Testimony of McClelland.

At trial, McClelland conceded the issue of negligence. He also testified, among other things, that on the day of the accident he had been drinking alcohol since early in the afternoon. He did not recall telling a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer following the accident that the reason he was drunk was that he had not taken his prescribed Antabuse pills.

B. Testimony of CHP Officers.

Two CHP officers testified regarding the scene of the accident, the condition of the vehicles involved in the accident, and McClelland's state of intoxication. Testimony was offered that prior to the accident the CHP had received a report of an erratic driver in a motor home, and that after the accident McClelland appeared intoxicated, was belligerent and uncooperative, and used vulgar language.^[1]

C. Testimony of Romero.

Prior to the accident, Romero ran an interior decorating and drapery business, which she had started in 1993. The accident occurred on her way back from Las Vegas, where she had gone to investigate the possibility of starting another business and purchasing a home. Her personal income from the business was approximately $4,000 a month, which she used to support herself and her family. Before the accident, she had no physical problems, not even headaches. She performed her job to its fullest, and also dedicated time to her children. Since the accident, however, she had been unable to work.

In response to an inquiry as to her memory of the accident, she said that she remembered when her car received the impact, that the impact was so great that the car went completely to the side, and that the car â€