Car Accidents

Court Upholds Offer to Compromise Following Motor Vehicle Collision Lawsuit; Defendant’s Changed Terms Re-Opened a Completed Negotiation That was not Enforceable under California Law

March 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a lawsuit following a motor vehicle collision, the injured plaintiffs were awarded compensation for their medical costs, lost wages from work, and general damages. At the time of the collision, the plaintiffs had been acting in the course of employment, and were also awarded workers’ compensation benefits. The main issue in this appeal concerned a settlement offer between the defendant and the employer’s insurance company. On appeal, the court emphasized the role of intention in a written agreement, and particularly when one party is assigning legal rights.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 provides an Offer to Compromise, which is often used in personal injury cases in order to reach an agreement in a dispute before trial. In this case, the defendant responsible for causing the automobile accident had appealed a trial court order enforcing a Section 998 Offer. He contended there had not been a meeting of the minds regarding agreed terms of settlement.

The facts of the underlying lawsuits indicate that plaintiffs brought separate lawsuits against defendant for their injuries, and their employer’s insurer filed a complaint in intervention, in order to recover the costs of their workers’ compensation benefits they had paid to plaintiffs. Defendant then attempted to settle the insurer’s complaint through a Section 998 Offer, which was accepted, and filed with the court. Then, defendant sent insurer an agreement with an assignment of plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation lien rights to defendant, which was a modification of the original offer. At the time, the insurer held $161,322.05 in lien rights between the two plaintiffs. Because the Section 998 Offer had not included this assignment of rights, the insurer responsed by sending its draft of the settlement agreement without the assigned rights.

California Court Upholds Determination that Plaintiff Caused Collision when Trial Court Made Findings of Fault and Credibility Based on their Observation and Evaluation of Testimony

March 16, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently issued a judgment affirming a lower court’s judgment against a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit. Following a motor vehicle collision in San Diego, the plaintiff brought personal injury claims against the County. The trial court issued a minute order that determined the plaintiff had caused the accident when he failed to exercise caution while exiting his driveway and collided with a County employee driving a County vehicle.

On appeal, plaintiff challenged the finding that he was at fault for causing the collision. The appellate standard for review is one of substantial evidence, and the court made clear that an appeal does not serve as a second hearing, but determines whether any error occurred in the trial court proceedings. If there was error, the court must determine whether it was prejudicial to the defendant.

The court also stated that appellants must provide adequate records if they are challenging a trial court’s findings. This is based on the rule that an order or judgment is presumed to be correct, and appellants must demonstrate prejudicial error to be successful on appeal.

California Court Holds Bar Owner & Manager Not Legally Responsible for Intoxicated Patron/Employee’s Fatal Car Accident

March 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal held that the owner and manager of a bar was not responsible for the death of a woman who had been served alcohol and allowed to drive home while intoxicated. In reaching this conclusion, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to sustain the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. Specifically, the court rejected the argument that there was an applicable exception to the general rule that serving alcohol does not render a person liable for any resulting injuries.

The decedent in this case was a 27-year-old wife and mother who lost control of her car while driving while intoxicated. The plaintiffs in this case were the son, husband, and parents of the decedent. They brought a lawsuit against the owner and manager of the bar where the woman had been drinking before driving, alleging that they had been negligent in serving her alcohol and allowing her to then drive.

Employer Not Vicariously Liable for Employee’s Negligence in Causing Fatal Car Crash, Due to “Going and Coming” Rule, According to California Appellate Court

March 2, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

On appeal, the California Court for the Fourth Appellate District addressed whether a temporary employee had acted within the scope of his employment when he caused a motor vehicle accident that killed one victim and seriously injured another. Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of an employee. In this case, the court examined the exceptions to the “going and coming rule,” which precludes an employer’s liability on the ground that an employee on their way to and from work is outside the course and scope of employment.

The plaintiffs, including the wife and son of the fatally injured victim in the car accident, brought a wrongful death action against a company following a car crash caused by its employee. They argued that the nature of the driver’s employment before the accident prevented the application of the “going and coming rule.” They argued that an exception to the rule applied, since the employee had a long commute to work.

California Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Car Insurer When Insured Used “Non-Owned” Employer Vehicle Regularly

February 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals recently addressed whether a van that had been provided to an employee for business use was covered by that employee’s personal automobile insurance. This issue was central to the lawsuit brought by a car accident victim injured by the employee while she was driving the van, during business hours, on a personal errand. The accident victim had recovered the statutory limit of $15,000 from the employer and then, in an arbitration involving only the driver/employee and the victim, been awarded over a half-million dollars in damages.

The driver tendered the defense of the action to her insurer, but they refused to indemnify or defend her. She assigned her rights to the victim. After the insurer refused to pay the judgment the victim had obtained, based on the arbitrator’s award, the victim filed a lawsuit against the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, and declaratory relief.

California Appeals Court Upholds Rule that Insurance Agent Owed No Duty to Advise Plaintiffs to Purchase Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance to Help Recover Costs from Son’s Accident

February 3, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals analyzed whether an auto insurance company had breached its duty of care to a husband and wife who believed they had purchased liability insurance for “everything,” including excess uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. The issue was whether such a duty exists, under California law, and whether the insurance agency had negligently failed to disclose that the plaintiff’s policy did not have UM coverage.

The plaintiffs, the parents of a teenage boy struck and injured by an underinsured motorist, had purchased a personal umbrella policy through an insurance agency (the defendant). When the plaintiffs learned that they had personal liability coverage but no excess uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage, they filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging they negligently failed to disclose that their umbrella policy did not have UM coverage.

The plaintiffs’ allegation was that by failing to obtain a UM umbrella policy, the defendants deprived them of an additional million dollars of insurance benefits for their son’s accident. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant breached its duty of care. The plaintiffs appealed.

California Court Reverses Lower Court Judgment in Favor of Towing Company after Plaintiff Severely Injured in Freeway Shoulder Accident and Genuine Issues of Fact Remained

January 23, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently issued an unpublished opinion setting forth the elements of a negligence claim in order to assess whether summary judgment had been properly granted in favor of the defendant tow truck company. The pertinent facts of this case center on whether the towing company had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff and whether its conduct substantially caused his underlying injuries. The court of appeals analyzed the evidence, finding there were triable issues of fact preventing the grant of summary judgment in favor of the towing company.

On a rainy morning, in rush hour traffic, the plaintiff’s truck hydroplaned and crashed into a median barrier on the highway. He was uninjured, and his truck was safely towed to the right shoulder of the road by a tow truck company, assisted by the California Highway Patrol. The tow truck operated under the Freeway Safety Patrol Service (FSP) program. While waiting for another tow truck to tow the plaintiff’s truck off the freeway, standing near the rear of his vehicle, the plaintiff was struck by another vehicle, caused by the driver’s loss of control due to weather conditions. The plaintiff suffered serious harm, including the loss of his left leg below the knee, a broken pelvis, and other injuries.

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the driver, the CHP, Caltrans, and fictitious parties, and he amended his complaint to name the initial towing company. He alleged that the CHP and its agents had been negligent because it was foreseeable that another car would hydroplane and cause another accident. He also alleged that he was owed a reasonable duty of care not to be exposed to an unreasonable risk of injury, and leaving him on the shoulder of the road rather than towing him to safety breached that duty.

Appeals Court Holds California Law Governs in Tragic Tour Bus Rollover Accident, Noting California Product Liability Law More Favorable to Plaintiffs

January 19, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in favor of plaintiffs pursuing damages following a motor vehicle crash. The choice of law issue in this case centered on whether a California tour bus dealership was subject to Indiana law, the location of the tour bus manufacturer, or California law. Noting that product liability law is more “plaintiff-friendly” in California, the court applied the governmental interest test and ultimately held that California law should apply.

Following a catastrophic California tour bus accident, the surviving victims and family members of the deceased victims filed a lawsuit for damages against the tour bus distributor, as well as the manufacturer and driver. The plaintiffs, 10 Chinese nationals visiting the United States on holiday, alleged strict liability, negligence, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The accident took place on a trip from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon.

Legally, there was no dispute about causation, since the driver had taken a turn at a high speed, lost control of the bus, and rolled it twice. Since the driver and tour guide had been wearing seat belts, they were virtually unharmed in the crash. None of the passengers had seat belts, some were ejected from the bus, and all suffered serious injuries. Two were fatally wounded.

Lessee of Vehicle Cannot Recover Compensation for Diminished Value of Car After Accident, According to California Court

January 12, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District recently issued an unpublished opinion in an appeal taken from a personal injury case following a car accident involving a leased vehicle. The issue before the court was whether the individual who had leased the vehicle (a “lessee”) could recover damages for the “diminished value” of the car following an accident. In this particular situation, the car had been repaired to its original condition, and when the lessee returned the car to the lessor, there were no charges assessed as a result of the accident.

The plaintiff entered into a lease with BMW Financial Services (BFS) for a 2012 model valued at $58,813.34 for 36 months. He was required to return the car to its “pre-damage condition” in the event of an accident. Months later, the defendant and he were involved in an accident, and the leased vehicle was damaged. According to the terms set forth in the lease, the vehicle underwent repairs at a certified BMW repair facility. The defendant’s insurer paid approximately $24,000 for repairs, and the plaintiff continued to drive the vehicle.

The plaintiff then filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging personal injury and property damage. The plaintiff was suing for the loss of the diminished value of the vehicle, in an amount of more than $33,000. Before trial, the defendant moved to exclude evidence on diminished value because the plaintiff had no standing to pursue these damages, since he did not own the vehicle, the vehicle had been returned to pre-accident condition, and the plaintiff was not liable to BFS for any damages or diminished value.

California Law Makes it Illegal to Hold Cell Phone While Driving

January 2, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

As of January 1, 2017, drivers throughout California are prohibited from driving and holding their cell phones. The bill, AB 1785, was signed by Governor Jerry Brown in September. According to the law, drivers are prohibited from holding a cell phone and operating their vehicle for any reason, including texting, talking, and checking maps.

According to California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5, individuals may use their cell phone while driving if the phones are configured to be voice-operated and hands-free. The phone must be used in this manner while driving. In other words, driving while holding and operating a device is an offense.