Car Accidents

California Appeals Court Holds City Entitled to Design Immunity Defense for Intersection

December 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a judgment in favor of the family of a pedestrian killed by the driver of a truck while crossing the street in a crosswalk in the City of Atwater. The pedestrian’s family sued the driver and the City, alleging negligence and liability under Government Code section 8351 (dangerous condition of the intersection).

In this case, the City had asserted the affirmative defense of design immunity concerning the intersection where the accident occurred. The court assessed whether the City was entitled to the design immunity defense under Government Code section 830.6, which shields a government entity from liability for dangerous conditions.

California Court Determines Substantial Evidence Supported the Jury Verdict When Driver’s Failure to Properly Observe Intersection was not Negligent as a Matter of Law

October 27, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal upheld a jury verdict finding that the defendant was not negligent in a two-car vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was injured. The appellate court looked at precedent to conclude that negligence remains a question of fact, and when the evidence demonstrates that the defendant driver showed some level of care and may have acted reasonably, even if a collision resulted, they may not be deemed negligent.

The collision occurred when defendant Joshua Nozar attempted to cross an intersection in his Range Rover to secure a parking spot and collided with plaintiff Sassa Minnegren, operating her small car. Ms. Minnegren sued Mr. Nozar for negligence.

After hearing testimony from two eyewitnesses as well as the defendant, the jury rendered a special verdict in favor of Mr. Nozar. Mr. Nozar had testified that he looked and saw Ms. Minnegren’s car approaching the intersection, but he thought he had enough time to make it through the intersection safely. The trial court entered the judgment on the special verdict, and Ms. Minnegren filed motions for a new trial and JNOV, based on the insufficiency of the evidence. Both motions were denied by the trial court. Ms. Minnegren appealed.

California Appellate Court Upholds Reasonable Value of Medical Services for Uninsured Victim of Car Accident

October 24, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal involving a personal injury plaintiff’s damages for past medical expenses. At issue was the reasonable value of medical services received by the plaintiff, who, at the time of the underlying motor vehicle accident, was uninsured. The court narrowed their decision, abiding by precedent that a plaintiff is entitled to recover from the tortfeasor the reasonable value of medical services.

In this case, defendant Richard Mercer admitted he negligently collided with plaintiff Lillie Moore’s vehicle. Ms. Moore’s health and lifestyle were negatively affected, and she had not suffered any physical limitations before the accident. At the time of the collision, Ms. Moore was uninsured.

Ms. Moore’s life changed greatly following the accident, and she eventually moved to be near additional family support. After being unable to engage with her son or participate in full-time work, Ms. Moore agreed to undergo disk replacement surgery for her back. The court noted that disk replacement surgery is difficult, and only five or six surgeons in the Sacramento area regularly conduct these procedures. Before securing medical treatment, Ms. Moore executed medical lien agreements with her health care providers. They obligated her to pay the full amount of billed fees. Her providers sold their bills and liens to Medfin, a medical finance company.

California Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Defendants Because Plaintiff’s Injuries From Multiple Car Accidents Had Healed, and Ongoing Medical Issues Were Unrelated to Accidents

October 17, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit following two motor vehicle collisions, an injured plaintiff appealed the jury’s award of damages. A California Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the jury award for past pain and suffering, with no future economic or noneconomic damages awarded. The court focused on the fact that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries stemming from the car accidents had likely healed, and any ongoing medical complaints were unrelated to the accident.

On February 3, 2012, Ms. Tent was traveling from Malibu to Oxnard for her work as a code enforcement officer, and her vehicle was rear-ended by one defendant in the injury lawsuit. Later, returning to Malibu, she was rear-ended again by a different defendant. Both defendants admitted their liability for the accidents.

Ms. Tent sought damages for the neck and back injuries that she claimed resulted from the collisions. She waived her claim for past medical costs, and the issue was whether she was entitled to damages for past lost earnings, future lost earnings, future medical expenses, past noneconomic loss, and future noneconomic loss.

California Appellate Court Rejected Car Owner’s Claim that Insurance Company Breached Duty By Repairing Vehicle and Not Compensating for Decline in Value After Vehicle Accident

October 5, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal reviewed a lower court’s decision in favor of an automobile insurance company regarding coverage for vehicle damage resulting from a collision. The facts of this case are particular in that the vehicle at issue was parked at the time of the accident. The appellate court reviewed the car owner’s allegations against his insurance company, ultimately finding that a general allegation that the car had not been restored to its pre-accident condition did not suffice to hold the insurer liable for breach of contract and bad faith.

William Baldwin owned a nearly new Toyota Tundra Pickup that was struck, while parked, when two vehicles collided nearby. Mr. Baldwin had car insurance that covered collision-related damage. His insurer refused to consider the pickup a “total loss” and instead chose to repair it at a cost of $8,196.06. The future resale value of the pickup decreased by more than $17,100.

Mr. Baldwin brought a negligence claim against the drivers involved in the motor vehicle collision, as well as a claim against his insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith. According to Mr. Baldwin, under his insurance policy, the company was required to pay for the pre-accident value of the pickup or repair it to its original condition. During the repair of his vehicle, Mr. Baldwin’s insurer provided him with a rental car. In his lawsuit, he sought the difference in value for the period that his vehicle was being repaired.

California Court of Appeal Upholds Cancellation of Car Insurance Policy Before Car Accident; Plaintiffs’ Claims for Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fail

September 27, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an automobile insurance company that denied uninsured motorist coverage to an individual, a third-party beneficiary, who was injured in a car accident. In this case, the insurer claimed that it canceled the liability policy before the accident. The third party alleged that the cancellation was invalid and unreasonable as a matter of law.

The court stated that insurance companies can cancel their automobile insurance policies before they expire when there is a “substantial increase” in the hazard insured against. This increase takes place, for example, when an insured does not provide the insurance company with necessary information, after a reasonable request. The written request by the insurance company must make clear that if the insured does not provide the information, their policy may be cancelled.

Jeff and Denise Fields had an auto insurance policy issued by Defendant AAA Northern California, Nevada, and Utah Insurance Exchange. The annual period began on March 18, 2004. Under the policy, Jeff Fields, Denise Fields, and their daughter Krystal Fields were insured drivers. The policy also gave AAA the right to cancel the policy for any reason by providing written notice 20 days before.

California Court Holds Target Corporation Not Liable When Employee Left Work and Caused Fatal Car Accident Because Plaintiffs Failed to Show Employee’s Drinking and Resulting Accident Was Foreseeable Occurrence

September 23, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued an unpublished opinion in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of two individuals struck and killed by an intoxicated Target Corporation employee after working hours. The issue was whether the lower court had properly held that the defendant’s employer, Target, was not liable under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. The plaintiffs contended that it was foreseeable that workers would drink secretly on the job, and a jury could find the driver’s intoxication was incidental to his employment position at Target. The appellate court upheld the summary judgment motion in favor of Target.

Anthony Fragoso worked at the Target in Long Beach, and during his meal break one afternoon, he bought a small bottle of vodka and began drinking. He continued to drink this vodka secretly during meal periods and kept his drinking hidden from Target. After his shift ended that night, at around 11:30 p.m., he continued drinking from his vodka bottle and then drank one and one-half beers while driving a coworker home.

After Mr. Fragoso left his coworker’s house, he drove in the wrong direction of traffic for miles along State Route 91. Ultimately, he collided with a vehicle and killed the decedents, Alan Reyes and Vanessa Cease. Mr. Fragoso’s blood alcohol content was determined to be .23, the equivalent of 11.5 standard drinks. Mr. Fragoso pled guilty to two counts of felony vehicular manslaughter.

California Appellate Court Reverses Judgment in Favor of Injured Pedestrian, Holds Employer not Liable for Employee’s Tortious Conduct on Commute Home from Work

September 20, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that the employer of an at-fault defendant driver could not be held liable for injuries sustained by a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle collision. The appellate court reviewed the jury’s finding that the employer was liable on a theory of respondeat superior, ultimately holding that there was no evidence that the defendant employee had been acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Leopoldo Jorge, Jr., brought a lawsuit against Almir Da Fonseca and the Culinary Institute of America after he was injured when struck by a car driven by Mr. Da Fonseca. Mr. Da Fonseca worked as a chef instructor at the Culinary Institute. He had finished his shift and was driving home, in his own car, at the time of the accident.

A jury found the Culinary Institute was liable for Mr. Jorge’s injuries. They applied the theory of respondeat superior. The Culinary Institute then moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing there was no evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Da Fonseca was in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court denied the motion, and the Culinary Institute appealed, arguing that they could not be liable for injuries caused by Mr. Da Fonseca’s negligence because Mr. Da Fonseca was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

California Appellate Court Holds Jury Reasonably Rejected Plaintiffs’ Accident Claims, Based on Finding that Testimony was not Credible

September 13, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California appellate court addressed whether a jury reasonably rejected a plaintiff’s testimony and concluded there were no injuries in a motor vehicle collision. The parties had stipulated to the defendant’s negligence as the cause of the collision. The issues at trial centered on the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s harm and the claim of loss of consortium.

Susan Christ brought a lawsuit against Dwayne Schwartz for injuries she allegedly suffered following Mr. Schwartz’s collision with her vehicle. Jon Christ, Susan’s husband, also brought a claim against Mr. Schwartz for loss of consortium based on Susan’s injuries. The jury awarded no damages to the Christs. On appeal, the Christs argued the trial court should not have allowed evidence of photographs of the vehicles after the collision, or evidence of Jon Christ’s extramarital affair.

California Court Holds Injured Driver Had Not Shown Dangerous Condition Posed by Construction Site Nor Had He Presented Evidence of Negligence

August 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an appeal before the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, the appellate court reviewed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and a construction company for negligence related to a car accident. The court reviewed the admissible evidence submitted by the plaintiff in an effort to defeat the summary judgment motion, and it concluded that there was not a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a dangerous condition caused the plaintiff’s accident.

Thomas Glage had been driving home from dinner at the Gilroy Elks Lodge when he made a left turn from the driveway of the Lodge onto Highway 152 and was struck by a vehicle. He claimed that due to a construction project, his view of westbound traffic had been obscured, thereby creating a dangerous condition. He filed a lawsuit against Caltrans and the construction company for personal injuries and property damage, alleging negligence and damages from a dangerous condition on public property.