Car Accidents

California Court of Appeals Holds Collateral Estoppel Bars Relitigating Issue Determined in Small Claims Proceeding

April 14, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

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 in small claims court will the parties be precluded from relitigating their issues.

Don Phuong Gedenberg pulled his tractor-trailer, owned by his employer, Valley Recycling, out of a driveway in San Jose, California. He parked his vehicle on the shoulder, facing traffic. Mr. Gedenberg did not sufficiently straighten his vehicle, and the front right portion of the trailer jutted into the southbound lane.

A Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) bus collided with Valley Recycling’s trailer. The driver was injured, and the trailer and bus were severely damaged. Valley Recycling’s insurance company filed a complaint to recover $44,166.67 in damages to the tractor-trailer. SCVTA’s insurance company, Great American, and SCVTA filed a cross-complaint, seeking to recover their losses due to the damage to SCVTA’s bus.

California Appellate Court Upholds Finding that Plaintiff Partially Caused Motor Vehicle Collision

April 7, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

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 had been speeding, it was appropriate for the jury to find her conduct partially caused the collision.

Plaintiff Charlene Adams and defendant Beth Jordan were involved in a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Gilman and Fourth Streets. The posted speed limit on Gilman Street is 25 miles per hour. At the time of the crash, traffic was congested, and it was dark. Lowered barriers blocked Gilman Street at a railroad crossing approximately one block west of Fourth Street.

The defendant testified she stopped at the stop sign at Gilman and slowly entered the intersection, crossing the westbound lane of Gilman Street. She looked down the eastbound lane and did not see approaching headlights. While crossing the eastbound lane, she was hit by the plaintiff’s car, driving east. The defendant’s car spun around from the force of the impact.

California Court of Appeals Finds California Law Applies in Lawsuit Against Car Insurance Company Despite Fact that Collision Occurred in Arkansas

March 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

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 resided and where they had purchased their car insurance policy. The appellate court applied the “governmental interest” analysis to determine the choice of law issue, ultimately holding that California was the forum state.

Errol T. Howertown and Diane McCracken (“the insureds”) were involved in a motor vehicle collision while traveling in Arkansas. Timothy McFarland, an uninsured motorist, struck a deer and then struck their vehicle. The insureds allegedly suffered injuries due to the collision.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Waiver of Liability for Spiritual Substance Abuse Home Because Waiver Supports Nonessential Activity that Benefits the Public

March 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal issued a recent opinion holding that a waiver of liability did not violate public policy when it was signed in consideration for room and board, and spiritual support for substance abuse. The court examined the benefits of upholding the waiver, particularly for organizations that provide help to the public and need to be able to conduct themselves without fear of potential litigation. In conclusion, the court rejected the plaintiff’s allegations that the waiver went against public policy.

In His Steps Christian Recovery Home, Inc. (IHS) is a nonprofit organization that provides regulations-based support and residential recovery for adults with drug- and alcohol-related problems. The IHS home was not subject to licensure by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.

California Supreme Court Approves Public Entity Design Immunity Defense in Intersection Car Accident Case

March 1, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Supreme Court clarified an issue central to public agency tort defense. A public entity may be liable for dangerous conditions on public property, including roads, but design immunity, an affirmative defense, can shield them. The agency must demonstrate three requirements: a causal relationship between the design and the accident, discretionary approval of the design, and evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan. In this case, the Court analyzed the second element, approval of the design.

Plaintiff Randall Keith Hampton was seriously injured in a collision between his vehicle and another at the intersection of Miller and Cole Grade Roads in San Diego County. While attempting a left turn, Mr. Hampton alleged he pulled forward from Miller Road onto Cole Grade Road. Mr. Hampton and his wife sued defendant Robert Cullen, the driver of the other vehicle. The Hamptons alleged Mr. Cullen’s negligence caused the accident. Mr. Hampton suffered brain injuries and could not recall if he had stopped at the stop sign at the intersection. An on-scene officer of the California Highway Patrol concluded that Mr. Hampton caused the accident when he failed to stop at a stop sign on Miller Road before entering the intersection.

California Court of Appeals Allows Cross-Defendant to Recover Costs in Car Accident Lawsuit, Remands to Determine Reasonable and Necessary Costs

February 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal opinion, the court addressed the issue of cost recovery on behalf of a cross-defendant in an underlying car accident lawsuit. The court analyzed the law providing that a prevailing party in an action may recover costs as a matter of right. In addition, the court analyzed whether the costs to defend the lawsuit were reasonable and necessary to the party’s defense.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs sued Mr. Pritchett, Ford, and Lithia of Fresno, Inc. to recover damages for personal injuries. Mr. Pritchett cross-complained against Ford and Lithia for equitable indemnity.

Mr. Pritchett settled with the plaintiffs, paying his insurance policy limits of $1.5 million, contingent on the settlement being made in good faith. The plaintiffs then dismissed their case against Mr. Pritchett. Lithia settled with the plaintiffs, and the matter went to trial between the plaintiffs and Ford.

California Court Holds County Has Right to Recovery of Funds Held by Car Accident Victim

February 1, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal addressed a complication arising from a statute providing the government with compensation after paying for the medical treatment of tort victims. Government Code section 23004.1 gives counties a right of action against the tortfeasor, as well as a lien against judgments secured by the injured person against the tortfeasor. In this case, the tortfeasor issued a check in the amount of the lien but made it payable to the county and the injured person, who then refused to endorse the check to the county. The issue before the court was how to enforce the county’s right to recovery.

Jose Tinoco, while working for Fresh Express, injured Javier Escobar when he negligently operated a vehicle. Mr. Escobar was treated at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, a hospital owned by the County of Santa Clara.

The value of the treatment and care was alleged to be $1,249,545.38. Mr. Escobar brought a lawsuit against Mr. Tinoco and Fresh Express and recovered a judgment for $5,689,624.87. The County of Santa Clara asserted a lien against the judgment, according to Government Code section 23004.1. Fresh Express paid the amount of $1,249,545.38 to Mr. Escobar’s attorney, made out to the County and to the law firm representing Mr. Escobar.

California Court of Appeal Holds Evidence of Industry Custom Relevant in Lawsuit for Compensation Following Car Accident

January 21, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Having brought claims of negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranties, the couple suing the car manufacturer appealed the decision of the lower court to deny their exclusion of evidence comparing the vehicle to competitors. The issue was whether evidence of industry custom and practice is always inadmissible.

Mr. Kim swerved in his 2005 Toyota Tundra while on the highway in order to avoid hitting a car driving in the opposite direction that had crossed over the center line. He attempted to regain control of his truck, which had veered too far right, but he eventually drove off the highway into an embankment. The truck rolled, and he suffered serious injuries.

California Court of Appeal Holds City of San Francisco Had Valid Lien on Victim’s Recovery in Lawsuit Following Car Accident

January 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the City of San Francisco properly placed a lien on settlement proceeds for the recovery of medical care costs provided to an injured victim of an accident. The City paid for the victim’s medical care when he was hit by a car, and the victim sued the driver of the car for damages. The victim then argued that the City’s lien against his recovery was invalid because it was preempted by California law.

Jagdishwar Chand suffered injuries after being struck by a car. He was treated at San Francisco General Hospital and then brought a lawsuit against the driver of the car that hit him. He settled with the driver for $100,000 and then filed a notice of partial settlement. The City filed a medical reimbursement lien for $370,000 in Mr. Chand’s personal injury case. They sought recovery of the cost of medical care provided to him.

California Court Holds Witness Testimony Should Not Have Been Excluded as Evidentiary Sanction

December 28, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether the trial court properly excluded witness testimony in support of a car accident victim. An evidence sanction was imposed upon the plaintiff for failing to divulge the witness information in response to discovery requests. The court analyzed the exact nature of the witness testimony, since it served the purpose of providing information on the plaintiff’s injuries and difficulties following the accident.

Karla Mitchell was the plaintiff in a personal injury and property damage lawsuit stemming from a car accident. She filed an action against Ernestine Johnson and Doe defendants, seeking wage loss, loss of use of property, medical bills, property damage, and other damages. Mr. Johnson then propounded form interrogatories upon Ms. Mitchell. In answer to interrogatory No. 12.1, specifically asking for the identification of witnesses to the incident, Ms. Mitchell named one of her children, a passenger in the vehicle.