Car Accidents

California Court Holds Car Accident Victims Cannot Recover from Negligent Driver’s Automobile Insurer Due to Teenager’s Regular and Exclusive Use of Non-Covered Vehicle

December 18, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether an insurance policy exclusion applied in a case of a regularly used non-covered vehicle. Typically, insurance policies provide coverage for non-owned, occasionally used vehicles. Most policies exclude coverage for the regular use of vehicles not included in the policy. This exclusion, deemed the “regular use” exclusion, prevents the insured from driving two cars and only maintaining insurance coverage for one car. In this case, the court considered the policy implications of excluding coverage for the victims of an automobile accident caused by a teenage driver of an uninsured vehicle.

Simone Lionudakis, 17 years old, was driving a GMC pickup truck owned and registered to her father when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The accident injured Aweia Shimon and Flora Shimon. The Shimons brought a personal injury lawsuit against Simone and her parents. Simone’s parents were separated.

Simone’s father had excluded her from his insurance policy in order to save money, even though Simone was the only driver of the GMC. Simone’s mother had insurance through Nationwide Mutual Insurance, but she did not have coverage for the GMC. The Nationwide policy provided coverage for the use of a non-owned vehicle, provided that the vehicle was not furnished or available for regular use.

California Appeals Court Holds Substantial Evidence to Support Contrary Finding Does not Compel Conclusion of Insufficient Evidence Supporting the Judgment

December 11, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed whether an employer was liable for an employee’s car accident under the “special errand” exception to the rule that an employer is not liable for an employee’s negligent and wrongful acts if they are committed while going to and coming from work. The victim of the car accident argued that the collision took place while the employee was in the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s judgment under the manifest error standard, analyzing whether the appellant sufficiently demonstrated error.

Melvin Gatica worked for Gateway Insulation, Inc., located in Valencia. Early in the workday, he was sent to a job site in Lancaster. Mr. Gatica drove his personal vehicle to Lancaster. He left the Lancaster job site at 5:26 p.m. and drove on a two-lane road. While turning a curve, he crossed the double-yellow line and crashed head-on into a vehicle driven by Nadja Rayii. Ms. Rayii suffered severe injuries.

California Court Excludes Evidence of Third-Party Payment to Medical Providers for Lien in Car Accident Case

December 1, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of how to assess economic damages, such as medical expenses, in auto accident cases. Proving the amount of damages in an automobile accident can be complex. In this particular case, the court excluded evidence relating to the amount that a third-party provider paid for a lien. The court held that the probative value of that evidence was outweighed by the likelihood of undue prejudice.

A vehicle driven by Clare Meline struck a vehicle driven by Anna Uspenskaya in a busy intersection. Ms. Uspenskaya suffered spinal injuries, and she ultimately required surgery to correct a herniated lumbar disc. At the time of the accident, Ms. Uspenskaya did not have health insurance. She entered into an agreement with her physicians and the hospital in which they treated her in exchange for a legal right to receive a portion of the damages award she may recover in a personal injury lawsuit. Later, the medical providers sold that lien at a discount to a third-party financial services entity called MedFinManagers LLC.

California Court Limits Insurance Coverage When One Collision Was Proximately Caused by Two Negligent Acts

November 30, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an opinion regarding the definition of “accident” under an automobile insurance policy, the California Court of Appeal held that two negligent acts that proximately cause one accident are considered one accident for insurance policy purposes. The court relied upon common sense and the reasoning that if a time lapse existed between proximate causes of car accidents, there would be no limit to an insurance company’s liability.

Mercury Casualty Company sought a judicial determination that their policy’s limit of liability for bodily injury applied to Monique Jones’ claim for bodily injury coverage under the policy. The trial court granted Mercury’s summary judgment motion, and Ms. Jones appealed.

The facts demonstrate that Mercury Insurance issued a coverage policy to Kari Amaya, with bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The insured driver was listed as Ashley Amaya.

California Supreme Court Reverses Judgment for City Because Plaintiff Need Not Prove Dangerous Condition Caused Third-Party Conduct

November 20, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Supreme Court, the issue centered on government liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on property. Government Code section 835 provides that a public entity can be held liable for an injury if that injury is proximately caused by a dangerous condition on its property. The risk of injury must have been foreseeable, and the entity must have had notice of the danger such that it could have taken corrective measures. Sometimes, as in the case at hand, prior to the injury, a third party causes or contributes to the accident. The question before the court was whether the plaintiff must show that the dangerous condition caused the third-party conduct.

The facts of this case center on a motor vehicle accident in which a third party’s negligent driving caused another car to strike a tree situated on a center median owned by the City of Los Angeles. This collision with the tree killed or injured all the vehicle occupants. The parents of three of the five passengers, plaintiffs Antonio Cordova and Janis Cordova, sued the City, asserting that under Government Code section 835, the configuration of the roadway was a dangerous condition on public property.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the boulevard was in a dangerous condition due to the proximity of the magnolia trees to the travel portion of the roadway. They alleged that the dangerous condition of the boulevard posed an unreasonable risk to motorists. The City of L.A. moved for summary judgment on the basis that the street and median were not dangerous, and the accident was due to third-party conduct, not a feature of public property. After the plaintiffs submitted expert conclusions stating that the magnolia tree was a dangerous condition, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the City.

California Court Holds Injured Plaintiffs May Show Value of Medical Services through Medical Testimony, Not Unpaid Medical Bills

November 13, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the California Court of Appeal addressed the type of evidence that can be used to prove the value of medical services received. A trucker and his passenger were injured in a collision, and the court held that their doctors’ testimony could be used to establish the value of medical services received, but their unpaid medical bills could not. The court stated that a billed amount is not necessarily representative of the true value of the service.

Joaquin Ochoa, a trucker, was driving his semi-truck without a trailer when a tractor-trailer driven by Jesus Felipe Dorado rear-ended his vehicle. Mr. Ochoa had been stopped in traffic, and Mr. Dorada allegedly did not see Mr. Ochoa until it was too late for him to stop in time. Mr. Ochoa and his passenger, Imelda Moreno, suffered back injuries as a result of the crash, and both underwent surgery.

California Court Holds Evidence of Marijuana Use Inadmissible in Car Accident Lawsuit Because Causal Connection Not Shown

November 3, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeals case involving the admissibility of evidence, the court addressed the role of testimony concerning a car accident victim’s marijuana use. The issue on appeal was whether the jury had been swayed to assign partial negligence to the victim after hearing evidence of his medical marijuana prescription.

This civil case centered on a tragic incident in which two men involved in an initial car accident were then injured in another accident, while standing outside their vehicles. Randy Hernandez had been driving on the freeway when he collided with Eric Lauderdale’s vehicle. Both men stood near their vehicles in the left lane when a sheriff’s deputy accidentally slammed into Mr. Lauderdale’s vehicle. This collision sent Mr. Lauderdale over the five-foot-tall divider, and he suffered a minor injury. Mr. Hernandez was fatally wounded by this second collision.

Mr. Hernandez’s daughter brought a lawsuit against Los Angeles County for negligence. During the trial, the County introduced evidence of Mr. Hernandez’s medical marijuana use. They alleged that Mr. Hernandez was responsible for the accident with Mr. Lauderdale. The jury awarded the County 51% of the fault, Mr. Lauderdale 35% of the fault, and Mr. Hernandez 14% of the fault.

California Court Upholds Verdict Despite Improper Testimony and Misconduct by Attorney

October 28, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial based on improper trial testimony regarding causation. This case involved a multiple-vehicle crash on a multi-lane freeway, leading to a personal injury lawsuit for damages. The court acknowledged the improper conduct of the attorney who elicited the testimony regarding causation, but it held the error to be correctable and not critical to the outcome of the case.

Plaintiffs Leo Pope and Judi Nightingale were hit by a car driven by Debbie Sert. Ms. Sert was no longer a party to the matter because she settled with the plaintiffs prior to the trial. She was a young, inexperienced driver with three passengers, on her way home from a weekend partying in Palm Springs.

Mr. Pope and Ms. Nightingale brought a lawsuit against Thomas Stanley, who allegedly made a negligent lane change, causing Ms. Sert to lose control of her car and hit Mr. Pope and Ms. Nightingale’s car. Mr. Stanley was not involved in the accident, and he did not stop at the scene. Mr. Pope and Ms. Nightingale also sued the vehicle’s owner, Matthew Babick.

California Court of Appeal Rejects Insurance Policy “Resident Exclusion” Denying Recovery to Car Accident Victim

October 22, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether an injured passenger can recover from the driver at fault under a “resident exclusion” in the driver’s automobile insurance policy. The driver and passenger were unrelated but lived together, and the insurance company attempted to deny coverage to the injured passenger under the terms of the policy. The court addressed the public policy rationale behind insurance exclusions and evaluated the legality of this particular exclusion.

The facts of this case center on a car accident in which Hung Chu, while driving his roommate, Tu Pham, turned left in front of a vehicle driven by Krystal Nguyen. Mr. Pham was injured in the accident and brought a lawsuit against Mr. Chu, seeking to recover $333,300.

Mercury Casualty Co. insured Mr. Chu and asked for a determination by the court that Mr. Chu’s policy did not require payment for the judgment. The basis was that the policy contained an exclusion for individuals who lived in the same household as the insured person. The exclusion was termed a “resident exclusion.” Mercury also asked the court to award it the attorney fees and costs associated with defending Mr. Chu against Mr. Pham’s lawsuit. The trial court upheld the insurance policy’s resident exclusion and determined that the insurance company did not need to cover the judgment obtained by Mr. Pham. Mr. Pham then appealed.

California Court of Appeals Holds Landowner Has Duty to Warn Patrons of Potential Dangers When Exiting Restaurant Off Pacific Coast Highway

October 8, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal, the California Court of Appeals determined that a restaurant operator has a duty to warn patrons leaving the premises when a right turn is required to be made when exiting the restaurant. The court addressed issues of premises liability and the duty owed by a landowner when patrons may be exposed to offsite injury.

In this case, the plaintiffs were the parents of Joseph Annocki, who was killed in a vehicle accident by a patron leaving Geoffrey’s Restaurant in Malibu. Mr. Annocki had been driving a motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu when Terry Turner exited the parking lot of the restaurant and collided with his motorcycle.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their third amended complaint for damages, based on the death of Mr. Annocki. The third amended complaint alleged wrongful death and dangerous condition of public property claims. The trial court held that Defendant Peterson Enterprises, LLC did not owe a duty to Mr. Annocki.