Home/D. Nevada/Wilson v. United States of America

Wilson v. United States of America

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided June 9, 2023·No. 2:18-cv-01241·Unknown

Opinion

1 BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7434 2 ASH MARIE BLACKURN, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14712 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 4 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 Las Vegas, NV 89148-5652 5 Tel: (702) 464-5000 Fax: (702) 463-4440 6 ash @mwinjury.com 7 Counsel for Plaintiff 10 SONALOLITA WILSON CASENO.: — 2:18-CV-01241-JCM-NJK 99 ao ll Plaintiff Vs. SECOND AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER bo = 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; DOES I THROUGH X; AND ROE 14 || CORPORATIONS | THROUGH X,

IS Defendants.

A = COMES NOW Plaintiff, SONALOLITA WILSON (Plaintiff? or “Wilson”), by an £0 ig. || through her attorneys, BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ., and ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ

v3 19 of MAINOR WIRTH LLP; and Defendants UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LLC (“USA”), □□ S 0 and through their attorneys, R. THOMAS COLONNA, ESQ., for the UNITED STATE! ATTORNEY, and submit this [Proposed] Amended Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to LR 16-3. 9 I. 73 A. Summary of Action This is a personal injury action arising out of two motor vehicle collisions that occurred o1 5 September 1, 2016, between Plaintiff WILSON and Defendant USA and Plaintiff WILSON an 6 DEMHA-SANTIAGO and DEMHA. Plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue approaching Saylor Avenue, in the eastbound lanes. Plaintiff alleges Nakia McCloud, while in th } course and scope of her employment with Defendant USA, in its Department of the Treasury, IRS

Page 1 of 18

Plaintiff alleges to have stopped in the eastbound travel lane for pedestrians who were crossing Washington Avenue. Plaintiff avers that Nakia McCloud then rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. Following the first collision, Nakia McCloud pulled her vehicle off to the right side of the road. Plaintiff’s vehicle remained in the roadway. As Nakia McCloud was on the phone with emergency services, while Plaintiff sat in her disabled car, her vehicle was struck again by a different vehicle, driven by a dismissed party, DEMHA SANTIAGO. Plaintiff further contends she was injured as a result of the September 1, 2016 motor vehicle collisions. B. Relief Sought Plaintiff seeks past medical specials in an amount in excess of $1,720,662.65. Plaintiff is continuing her medical treatment. She is also seeking the present-day value of future medical expenses in the amount of $386,938.00, loss of earning capacity in the amount of $805,038.85, and past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff presented claims for future medical specials between $1,504,780.00 and $2,238,876.00 during discovery. Thereafter, Defendant USA filed a Motion to Strike Untimely Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions, which was granted by the Court. C. Contentions of the Parties 1. Plaintiff’s Contentions: Plaintiff contends that Defendants were the sole cause of the subject collisions by failing to pay full attention to their surroundings, failing to reduce their speed, and striking the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff further contends that the motor vehicle collisions caused her significant injuries and the resulting damages that are the subject of this lawsuit. 2. Defendant USA’s Contentions: Defendant USA contends that Plaintiff cannot establish her burden of proof as to causation or damages (if any) as to the USA in the first accident. Statement of Jurisdiction As against the United States, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1346(b)(1), which provides that federal courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States… for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 1. Nakia McCloud was an employee of the Department of the Treasury, IRS, on September 1, 2016 and she was acting within the course and scope of her employment with the United States at the time of the motor vehicle accident. 2. On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff WILSON was operating a 2005 Toyota Corolla, traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue, approaching Saylor Avenue, in Las Vegas, Nevada. 3. On September 1, 2016, Nakia McCloud was operating a General Motors Terrain SLE, traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue. 4. On September 1, 2016, a dismissed party, DEMHA-SANTIAGO, was operating a 2006 Acura 3.2 TL, traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue. 5. The vehicle operated by DEMHA-SANTIAGO was owned by another dismissed party, 6. The front of Nakia McCloud’s vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff WILSON’s vehicle. 7. The front of DEMHA-SANTIAGO’s vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff WILSON’s vehicle. McCloud’s vehicle collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. IV. The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: None. V. The following are Plaintiff’s issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial: 1. Whether Nakia McCloud was negligent in her failure to operate her vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner at the time of the incident. 2. Whether Defendant USA is liable for Plaintiff’s injuries in light of Nakia McCloud’s breach of duty. 3. Whether Plaintiff could have reasonably been expected to avoid the second collision pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF 113). (Plaintiff disputes USA’s ability to argue this issue given its failure to assert a comparative negligence claim or to apportion Plaintiff’s damages between the two accidents, as well as the dismissal of the DEMHA Defendants. Thus, this may be a moot point at the time of trial.) 4. Whether the subject collisions proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff. 5. Whether the subject collisions proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 6. Whether the medical treatment claimed was/is reasonable, necessary, and related to the alleged collisions. 7. Whether the Plaintiff will have future symptoms related to the alleged collisions. 8. Whether the Plaintiff will incur future treatments related to the alleged collisions. 9. Whether the Plaintiff suffered a loss of earning capacity related to the alleged collisions. 10. Whether the Plaintiff has mitigated her damages that she relates to the alleged collisions. The following are Defendant USA’s issues of fact to be tried / determined at trial. 1. Whether Plaintiff’s conduct, specifically failing to put on hazard lights, failing to move vehicle off the travel lane, failing to move off to the side of the road and wait for emergency services, and exiting and re-entry in her own vehicle, contributed to her alleged injuries in this case? 2. Whether the United States is liable to Plaintiff and if so, to what extent. 3. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff was injured as a result of both accidents on September 1, 2016? 4. Whether and the extent to which Plaintiff was injured as a result of the first accident involving the United States’ employee. 5. Whether Plaintiff or any other party’s negligence contributed to the accidents and/or Plaintiff’s injuries. 6. Whether, and to what extent, the medical treatment Plaintiff received was reasonable and necessary due to the accidents on September 1, 2016? VI. (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence and intended to be admitted: See “Exhibit A” of this document. (b) The parties agree the following exhibits will be available for use at the time of trial and the parties agree to their foundation and authenticity, but are not currently intended to be admitted: See “Exhibit A-1” of this document. (c) The following exhibits are offered by Plaintiff: See “Exhibit B” of this document. Plaintiff reserves the right to use any documents disclosed by Def

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wilson v. United States of America, (D. Nev. 2023).

Wilson v. United States of America (Wilson v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Proctor v. Castelletti
911 P.2d 853 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1996)