A contentious legal battle has unfolded in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, where a plaintiff seeks to overturn a jury verdict that awarded him damages for future medical expenses and lost earning capacity but none for future pain and suffering. The complaint was initially filed by Matthew S. Moir in Ventura County on June 24, 2024, against Ventura Locksmiths, Inc.
Matthew S. Moir's lawsuit stems from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on July 8, 2017. Moir was driving his Honda Civic when he was rear-ended by a van driven by German Cahuantzi, an employee of Ventura Locksmiths, Inc. As a result of the collision, Moir sustained injuries that led to ongoing medical treatment and alleged loss of earning capacity. During the trial, Moir's counsel argued for substantial compensation: $1.6 million for future loss of earning capacity, $491,492 for future medical expenses, and approximately $6 million in noneconomic damages for past and future pain and suffering.
However, the jury's verdict fell significantly short of these demands. They awarded Moir $50,000 for past loss of earning capacity, $170,000 for future loss of earning capacity, $80,000 for future medical expenses, and $30,000 for past noneconomic damages but nothing for future noneconomic damages. Due to Moir being found 70 percent at fault for the accident—primarily because he stopped his vehicle on a highway in violation of Vehicle Code section 22340—the court reduced his total award to $99,000.
Moir contends that the jury’s decision is inconsistent and indicative of a compromise verdict. He argues that significant awards for future medical expenses and lost earnings should inherently include compensation for pain and suffering associated with those conditions. Furthermore, he accuses defense counsel of misconduct during closing arguments by commenting on his absence from most of the trial proceedings—a point which had been previously addressed during voir dire when prospective jurors were instructed not to consider or speculate about his absence.
The defense counters that any inconsistency claims were waived since they were not raised before the jury was discharged. They also argue that Moir’s absence from court opened the door to comments about his attitude towards the trial process. Despite this contention from both sides regarding procedural missteps and potential misconduct during closing arguments, the appellate court upheld the original judgment.
Moir’s appeal sought not only a reversal based on perceived inconsistencies but also called into question whether defense counsel’s remarks prejudiced the jury against him unfairly. However, upon review de novo—the standard applied to such cases—the appellate court found no grounds to overturn the jury's findings or grant a new trial.
Representing Matthew S. Moir were attorneys from Lowthorp Richards McMillan Miller & Templeman along with Arnold LaRochelle Mathews VanConas & Zirbel and Ferguson Case Orr Paterson firms. The defendants were represented by Horvitz & Levy LLP along with Knapp Petersen & Clarke.
The case was presided over by Judge Ronda McKaig in Ventura County Superior Court under Case ID No. B324653 (Super Ct No 56-2018-00517065-CU-PA-VTA).