Write an arbitration brief for the Homework Fact(it need to be similar to the Sample Arbitration Brief. docx)
does NOT need MLA style
I.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On January 15,2018, Defendant, Sedan Driver (“Ms. __________”) was driving her Sedan in an unincorporated area of San Francisco County at the intersection of 19th Avenue and Sloat Avenue.
The defendant was making a left turn onto northbound 19th avenue from eastbound on Sloat across oncoming traffic.
Defendant states that lights change from green to yellow and traffic from incoming westbound lanes come to a stop, she assumes the lights on the other side are red and starts moving. Suddenly, her car is struck by the plaintiff (motorcyclist). The defendant is hit from her rear side while the motorcyclist goes flying over the car and lands across the intersection from the scene of the accident. The plaintiff suffers injuries as a result of the collision.
The accident is witnessed by three different witnesses and they give their details of the accident.
Witness A says he was moving behind the defendant who moved on yellow. He saw the defendant move to the middle intersection and thus he stopped. He said the defendant started to turn his vehicle when the light was yellow. As the light was turning red the accident had already taken place.
Witness B was driving on lane 1 of the westbound Sloat and says the defendant moved after the red light. He saw the light change from green to yellow and stopped his car because he thought he could not make it to the intersection. He saw the defendant move to the intersection as he was stopping and saw the motorcycle hit the defendant’s car.
Witness C is a bicyclist who was on the bicycle lane on the westbound Sloat at a bus stop 25-35 yard away from the light. He saw the light turn green and the motorcycle goes past him hitting the defendant’s car at the intersection.
The police report identified one piece of physical evidence where the 20-foot skid mark which ends approximately motorcycle length from the region of the impact. The officer implied that the rear tire of the cycle left the skid mark and still made contact with the vehicle. The skid mark is in the 3rd lane.
Plaintiff was physically injured while the defendant was not. The medical damages amounted to $7,000 for (ambulance, crutches, x-rays TX pain medication, and physical therapy). The plaintiff claimed $3000 for the three weeks he did not attend work for he earned $1,000 weekly. On top of the medical and work missed damage the plaintiff claimed damage for suffering and pain he went through.
II
Plaintiff Contentions
The plaintiff contends together with the defendant had a hand in the accident. Both the defendant and the plaintiff did not apply due diligence in the course of driving their automobiles leading to injuries and damages. However, despite the negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant the plaintiff ended up suffering the most.
The negligence of the plaintiff was the proximate cause of the accident for he assumed that drivers on his opposite side were seeing the red light prompting him to turn his vehicle. Both the defendant and the plaintiff are liable as prescribed under the Vehicle Code section 21801(a) which says, “ (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching the intersection of the entrance to the property or alley from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turning vehicle.”
A.
BECAUSE DEFENDANT (Driver of the Sedat car) VIOLATED VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21801(a) THE LAW PRESUMES THAT SHE FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE CARE WHICH CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE PER SE
California Evidence Code § 669 states in pertinent part that, “(a) The failure of a person
to exercise due care is presumed if: (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”
The defendant violated the vehicle code 218001 (a) causing damages and injuries to the plaintiff a motorcyclist and the statute should protect the plaintiff to ensure he is fully compensated.
Therefore, the Defendant the drive of a Sedat violated the vehicle code 21800 for presuming that the light had changed to red which was not the case he should thus compensate the plaintiff.
B.
The plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the medical bill, the weeks he missed his salary and the pain and suffering he went through.
The defendant needs to compensate for the pains and suffering for their action was the proximate cause for them. The compensation should be granted in the form of days that he went through pain and suffering. The plaintiff should, therefore, be compensated $7, 0000 for a medical bill, $3,000 for the three weeks he missed work and compensation for pain and suffering.
III
Conclusion
The defendant acts of omission or commission were the proximate causes of the defendant’s damages and injuries. Therefore, the plaintiff needs to be compensated a total of $10,000 and pain and suffering damages that would need the Helpance of the medical practitioner to determine.
Plaintiff is open to any reasonable offers
Dated……………………………
Any ATTORNEY OR PARTY
