Car Accidents

California Appellate Court Upholds Jury Verdict that Dangerous Condition Had Not Caused Plaintiff’s Single-Vehicle Accident

June 8, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed a plaintiff’s allegations of error concerning the trial court’s exclusion of evidence in her single-vehicle personal injury lawsuit. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff had met the elements of showing that a dangerous condition of public property existed on the road. They also made clear that the standard on review was whether there was a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a result more favorable to the plaintiff, had there been no error.

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the State of California for severe and permanent injuries she suffered in an accident on State Route 127 in July 2012. She contended that a puddle on the road caused her vehicle to veer and roll over. On behalf of the state, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prevailed in a jury trial, when the jury found no dangerous condition existed.

In her appeal, the plaintiff contended that it had been a prejudicial error to exclude testimony from her biomechanical expert and a witness to the accident. Regarding the biomechanical expert, whom the plaintiff had designated to testify regarding how her injuries occurred during the car accident, Caltrans had contended that the expert was not qualified to offer opinions on the topic of accident reconstruction and traffic engineering. The expert was going to testify regarding the number of rollovers that took place in the accident.

California Court Upholds Decision Car Insurer Not Liable for Negligence Per Se, Plaintiff Prevented From Claiming Car Not Total Loss After Accident

May 25, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiffs took inconsistent positions regarding the damage to their vehicle. In a recent decision, the California appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of the insurance company. Not only did the court find that evidence had been properly excluded regarding whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was a total loss, but also the court upheld the finding that the insurer was not liable on the claim of negligence per se.

The defendant in this case had been insured, and the company took responsibility for damage to the plaintiffs’ car after a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiffs had repaired their vehicle, but the insurer notified the DMV that it had been a total loss salvage vehicle. This notification took place before reaching a settlement with the plaintiffs.

After the notification, the plaintiffs were unable to register their car and temporarily lost use of it until Mercury informed the DMV of the error. One of the plaintiffs then suffered a heart attack, allegedly from the stress of this dispute with the insurer and the effect of the DMV notification.

California Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Contention City was Liable for Dangerous Condition at Intersection Following Pedestrian Accident

May 22, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before a California appellate court, the issue on appeal was whether there remained triable issues of material fact concerning whether an intersection where an accident took place constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Dangerous conditions of property exist when property is defective or damaged in a way that foreseeably endangers those using the property. In analyzing whether the trial court properly granted judgment in favor of the city, the appellate court focused on whether the plaintiffs met their burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.

The lawsuit centered on a motor vehicle collision in which the defendant driver lost control of his car and hit the plaintiff, a pedestrian, injuring him. The plaintiff and his family members brought a complaint against the driver and the City of San Jose. On appeal, the claims against the City remained at issue, including allegations of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, dangerous condition of public property, and loss of consortium.

According to the plaintiffs, the intersection was an unreasonably dangerous condition of public property and caused the accident and the resulting injuries. They alleged that the intersection did not have proper signage, despite previous accidents caused by lack of visibility and lack of proper controls. The plaintiffs claimed that the City had been on notice of these issues.

California Court of Appeal Holds Parties Had Not Reached a Settlement in Personal Injury Lawsuit Following Car Crash, and Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed

May 18, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

At issue before the California Court of Appeal recently was whether there had been a settlement in a personal injury lawsuit, and if there had, whether the plaintiff showed good cause to prevent the dismissal of the case. The appellate court held the parties had not reached a settlement, and any unresolved dispute concerning the insurance policy was good cause to prevent dismissal. The court reversed the judgment, requiring the lower court to place the case on the civil active list.

The plaintiff in this case brought an action for injuries he suffered in a car accident with the defendants. After attending private mediation, the parties returned to court for a status conference. However, the court was advised there had been an issue concerning the insurance policy. The plaintiff’s counsel made clear that she wanted to file an underinsured motorist claim against the plaintiff’s insurance carrier. She understood that before making that claim, she needed to obtain the plaintiff’s insurance company’s permission to settle with the defendants. The matter was continued on the calendar, and potential insurance coverage issues remained, thwarting resolution.

At a hearing, the judge ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to appear, since a special appearance had been made on behalf of the plaintiff, requesting a jury trial. At the next hearing, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the same issue was addressed at a prior hearing and that the plaintiff’s counsel had been ordered to appear but failed to do so.

California Law Proposes “Idaho Stop” for Bicyclists Approaching Intersection in Effort to Reduce Accidents

May 15, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A proposed bill to be considered by California lawmakers will allow bicyclists to yield at stop signs, as opposed to coming to a complete stop, provided there is no oncoming traffic. Assembly Bill 1103, is based on the “Idaho Stop” law that permits bicyclists within that state to treat stop signs as though they are yield signs. According to the California Bill, bikers would have a legal duty to stop for pedestrians as well as cars that have the right of way. This change in the Vehicle Code may benefit motorists by making intersections more efficient, encouraging bicyclists to simply roll through the stop sign if they have the right of way.

According to some studies, the law that has been adopted by Idaho, nearly three decades ago, has resulted in increased bicycle safety. Injuries among bicyclists declined after the law took effect in 1982, and they have remained at the same level thereafter.

California Appeals Court Affirms Jury Verdict Entitling Defendant to Summary Judgment in Case Centered on “Battle of Experts” Following Motor Vehicle Collision

May 5, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California appeal, a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit following a motor vehicle collision argued that the trial court should not have admitted certain portions of the defendant’s medical expert’s testimony. Since the issues to be determined by the jury included negligence and causation, on appeal, the plaintiff argued that the jury verdict in favor of the defendant should be reversed. She contended the expert testified as to matters outside the scope of his expert designation, and that testimony should have been offered by an accident reconstruction expert.

At the trial level, the issue was whether the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s harm. The facts showed that the defendant had been in his pickup truck, stopped about 10-12 feet behind the plaintiff’s car. While reaching for an item in his cab, the defendant stated that his foot slipped off the brake, and his truck collided with the back of the plaintiff’s car. At the time, there was minimal damage to the vehicles, and no emergency services or tow trucks were called. Both drivers separately drove away in their vehicles.

California Court of Appeal Holds Employee May Have Been on “Business Errand” Benefiting Employer at Time of Motorcycle Collision

April 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeals held it was a question of fact for the jury as to whether an employee was on a business errand while commuting, and as a result, whether the employer could be liable for injuries to a motorcyclist struck by the employee in a collision. The general rule, set forth by the court, is that employees are not within the course and scope of employment while traveling to their workplace. However, California law holds that if an employee is commuting and on an errand for their employer, their conduct falls under the scope of employment.

In this case, a construction company, the defendant, paid an employee for the hours he worked at a job site. The company expected the employee to commute to the company “yard” and drive a company truck to the job site, along with coworkers and materials. While driving from his house to the yard, the employee struck a motorcyclist, who then sued the company.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant company on the basis that the employee had been commuting to “work” and was not acting within the scope of employment. But the issue framed by the appellate court was whether the “workplace” was the yard or the job site. If it was the job site, the employee had been on a business errand that benefited the employer.

Appellate Court Affirms No Cause of Action for Parent-Child Loss of Consortium Claim in California

April 17, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a decision to refuse to recognize a child’s cause of action for loss of parental consortium. Loss of consortium is a claim for damages asserted by a plaintiff, typically a spouse or family member. The claim refers to the loss of emotional care, affection, and sex (spousal loss of consortium) suffered by a surviving family member. In some jurisdictions, courts recognize a child’s ability to bring a loss of consortium claim following the death of their parent. In this particular case, the appellate court turned to precedent, stating that the California Supreme Court had determined that there was no such cause of action. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant ambulance company.

The facts of the lawsuit indicate that the victim’s car collided with an off-duty ambulance, and the victim suffered a traumatic brain injury as well as other complications. The victim’s infant daughter brought a lawsuit for loss of parental consortium against multiple defendants, including the driver of the ambulance and the ambulance company. The defendants argued that a minor cannot bring a claim for loss of consortium suffered by a parent, and they demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the minor’s complaint.

On appeal, the issue was whether California should reconsider a state Supreme Court case, Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., (1977) 19 Cal.3d 441, 444 (Borer). In that case, a mother of nine children was injured by a falling light fixture in an airline terminal. After the children sued the airline for loss of services, affection, and guidance, the California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of the airline’s demurrer, without leave to amend.

California Court of Appeal Dismisses Plaintiff’s Lawsuit for Damages Following Car Accident Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Cooperate and Intent to Commit Fraud on the Court

April 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court held that the lower court had appropriately ruled in favor of the defendant in a personal injury and property damage claim. In fact, the appellate court determined that the trial court had not erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for having committed misrepresentations to the court and for having attempted to commit fraud on the court by testifying falsely. The appellate court, in affirming this decision, noted the significance of the fact that on appeal, the plaintiff did not support his claims with legal evidence or authority.

The plaintiff in this case, a 73-year-old man, alleged that he suffered a bodily injury and property damage when a car driven by the defendant rear-ended his vehicle. The plaintiff represented himself in the trial court action. In summarizing the procedural history, the appellate court focused on the ways that the plaintiff had not cooperated fully with procedural requirements. For example, the court stated that the plaintiff had not provided expert witness information, nor had he truthfully testified as to his damages. While the facts indicated that a low-speed, minor rear-end collision had occurred, defense counsel stated that the injuries that the plaintiff claimed to suffer were not consistent with the facts of the collision.

In fact, the trial court advised the plaintiff to work to demonstrate that he in fact was harmed and provide an estimate of cost for his treatment, as well as estimated costs for future claims for treatment. The defense asked the plaintiff for a statement of his medical charges (allegedly totaling $63,000), but the plaintiff could not provide these, although he stated there may be over 100 different bills.

California Court Holds Defendant was not an “Affiliate” Entitled to Summary Judgment on Negligence and Premises Liability Claims After Tragic Vehicular Accident

March 27, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a tragic accident involving a vehicle undergoing repairs, a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit received a favorable judgment from the California Court of Appeal recently. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of his complaint based on a general release he had signed, immunizing the defendant from liability. The court here concluded that the defendant was not in the protected group of persons, as the term was understood in the release.

The plaintiff in this case brought a lawsuit against an automobile repair shop and the owner for his injuries. He had been retained by the shop to assess why the vehicle would not start. After testing the electrical connection starter, the vehicle ran him over and dragged him through the parking lot of the automobile repair shop, crushing his spine. Earlier, the vehicle had been towed to the auto shop, and the transmission shift linkage had been disconnected in order to tow the vehicle.

After settling his lawsuit with the owner and shop for the $1,000,000 limit of the defendants’ insurance policy, the plaintiff signed a settlement that released the defendants, as well as the defendants’ “affiliates,” from liability. Three months after settling the first action, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant who owned the underlying property from which the owner of the auto repair shop leased the land. Significantly, the owner left vehicles on the property in order for the repair shop to sell them, and the vehicle that injured the plaintiff was one of his vehicles. He sued the defendant for negligence and premises liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and it was granted on the basis that the defendant was an “affiliate” protected by the language in the release.