In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals analyzed whether the evidence supported a lower court’s determination that a railroad company was not negligent in regard to the fatalities of two minors who drove their vehicle onto railroad tracks on the morning after Halloween. In the dark, early morning hours after…
Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog
California Court of Appeal Holds Employee of Six Months Failed to Prove Psychiatric Injuries Resulted from a “Sudden and Extraordinary Condition”
Recently, the California Court of Appeals addressed a claim for workers’ compensation by an employee who had worked for his employer for 74 days before slipping and falling, resulting in numerous injuries. In this case, the court asked whether the accident responsible for the employee’s psychiatric injuries was in fact…
California Appellate Court Affirms Finding of No Liability for Assault Against Man Outside Ozzy Osbourne Concert
In a recent opinion issued by the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit could meet his burden upon a summary judgment motion. In this case, the court focused on the causation element of the plaintiff’s negligence claims. The defendants’ alleged negligence must…
California Court of Appeal Holds Defendant’s Decision to Drive Drunk Caused Vehicle Accident, Not Hotel’s Decision to Throw Defendant Off Premises
In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court reviewed the issue of causation in a personal injury lawsuit based on an underlying vehicle collision caused by a drunk driver. California law holds generally that social hosts who furnish alcohol to guests cannot be liable for injuries caused…
California Court of Appeals Holds Collateral Estoppel Bars Relitigating Issue Determined in Small Claims Proceeding
In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a small claims action precludes further litigation of issues before a trial court. While policy reasons support a finding of issue preclusion, the court here stated that only when it can be determined the same issues were actually litigated…
California Court Holds Dodger Stadium Not Liable in Slip and Fall Case
In a personal injury lawsuit before the California Court of Appeal, a man alleged he suffered injuries when he slipped and fell at Dodger Stadium. The court analyzed whether the Dodgers had knowledge of a dangerous condition and could be held liable. Plaintiff Fernando Maravilla fell in an aisle during…
California Appellate Court Upholds Finding that Plaintiff Partially Caused Motor Vehicle Collision
In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court reviewed a jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a car accident. In this case, the court found the evidence supported the verdict, particularly the finding of comparative fault on behalf of the driver. Since the plaintiff…
California Court Holds State Owed no Duty to Protect Child From Falling Tree at Campsite
In a Court of Appeal case, the court analyzed the applicable Government Claims Act natural condition immunity statute in a case involving an accident at a campground in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Turning to policy considerations, the court stated that providing immunity for public places, particularly recreational areas, allows for…
California Court of Appeals Finds California Law Applies in Lawsuit Against Car Insurance Company Despite Fact that Collision Occurred in Arkansas
Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of forum, or the place of jurisdiction where a lawsuit involving an underlying car accident would be held. In this opinion, the issue was whether the lawsuit should be heard in Arkansas, the location of the accident, or California, where the insured individuals…
California Court of Appeals Upholds Finding in Favor of Ice Center Under Primary Assumption of Risk When Ice Hockey Game Spectator Injured by Stray Puck
A recent opinion from the California Court of Appeal addressed the primary assumption of risk doctrine. This doctrine, applied to inherently dangerous activities, holds that there is no duty to eliminate the risks posed by the activity, but there is a duty not to unreasonably increase risks. In this case, the…