Alsaedi v. Westbrook CA1/1

── Alsaedi v. Westbrook CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 Alsaedi v. Westbrook CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MOHAMMED ALSAEDI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A170425 v. JOSHUA WESTBROOK, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC20585130) Defendant and Appellant. Joshua Westbrook appeals the judgment entered against him for personal injuries and loss of consortium plaintiffs Mohammed Alsaedi and Farqad Mahdi Obayes (collectively, plaintiffs) sustained in a collision involving vehicles driven by Westbrook and Alsaedi. Westbrook contends the trial court prejudicially erred by (1) denying him a mid-trial continuance after one of his attorneys fell ill, (2) excluding evidence that Alsaedi’s attorney referred Alsaedi to his treating physicians on a lien basis, and (3) admitting evidence that a police officer concluded Westbrook violated the Vehicle Code in connection with the collision. We reject his contentions and affirm. I. BACKGROUND The collision occurred when Alsaedi was driving down a street in San Francisco. Prior to the collision, Westbrook’s vehicle was parked on the side 1 of the street. As Westbrook pulled his vehicle out of its parking spot, he collided with Alsaedi, causing Alsaedi’s car to roll onto its side. Alsaedi and Obayes, who is Alsaedi’s wife, sued Westbrook for negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged that Westbrook negligently caused the collision and that Alsaedi suffered injuries in the collision that “will result in some permanent disability” to him. At trial, both sides called several medical experts to testify as to the nature and extent of Alsaedi’s injuries and whether the collision caused those injuries. The parties also called medical billing and vocational rehabilitation experts to testify regarding the reasonable costs of the medical treatment Alsaedi received for his injuries, the costs of his future medical care, and his “work-life” expectancy. Additionally, dashcam footage of the collision taken from Alsaedi’s vehicle was played for the jury, as well as excerpts of the video depositions of the officer who investigated the collision and of four of the physicians who treated Alsaedi after the collision. The jury found that Westbrook was negligent, that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing Alsaedi’s harm, and that Alsaedi was also negligent. Polling of the jurors revealed, however, that the jury was deadlocked six to six on the issues of whether Alsaedi’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing his harm and whether Obayes suffered a loss of consortium. As a result, the court instructed the jury to resume deliberating on comparative fault and loss of consortium. The jury returned a new verdict, finding that Alsaedi was 10 percent at fault for the collision and that Obayes suffered a loss of consortium. The trial court subsequently reduced plaintiffs’ damages by 10 percent. After the trial court granted Westbrook’s motion for remittitur, the court further reduced the jury’s awards for past economic damages and 2 future lost earnings and entered a judgment awardin