Personal Injury

California Court of Appeal Holds Government Not Liable for Injuries Suffered by Escaping Psychiatric Patient

May 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a judgment in a lawsuit involving government liability for an allegedly escaping mental health patient. In this case, the plaintiff suffered injuries after he jumped out the window of his room on the psychiatric floor of a Los Angeles County hospital. The appellate court focused on whether the government was immune from liability, based on the patient’s attempted escape.

Ricardo Manzano had been placed in a single patient room on the sixth floor of an inpatient psychiatric unit at Olive View, a County of Los Angeles Hospital with a licensed psychiatric unit. In the early morning during his stay at Olive View, Mr. Manzano ripped out the Plexiglass covering his window, broke the window, and jumped or fell through the window, suffering serious injuries.

California Court Holds Release of Liability at Trampoline Facility was Clear, Unambiguous, and Explicit

May 9, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed the validity of a release of liability in a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against a trampoline facility. The injured plaintiff, a non-native English speaker, claimed that she had not understood she was signing a document that released all claims against the defendant. The appellate court analyzed whether the release of liability was clear, unambiguous, and explicit.

Plaintiff Diana Torres is a native Spanish speaker and testified via deposition that she could speak, read, and write in English. Defendant House of Air, LLC (HOA) is a trampoline facility in San Francisco where customers can jump or enjoy planned activities on trampolines. There are distinct areas at the facility, including a Training Ground for those hoping to improve their athletic and aerial maneuvers.

California Court of Appeals Holds that Evidence Sustains Jury’s Verdict that Railroad Company was Not Negligent

May 2, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals analyzed whether the evidence supported a lower court’s determination that a railroad company was not negligent in regard to the fatalities of two minors who drove their vehicle onto railroad tracks on the morning after Halloween.

In the dark, early morning hours after Halloween in 2007, a Union Pacific Railroad freight train about a mile long and holding three locomotives and 86 cars fatally collided with a sport utility vehicle driven onto the railroad tracks by Renee Ammari and Tanya Sayegh before the accident.

Conductor Glen Lee Holmes and Carl Zipperman, the engineer, operated the train and sat next to each other in the first locomotive cab. The SUV was stuck, and Ms. Ammari and Ms. Sayegh died when the train struck their vehicle. Their parents sued defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Glen Lee Holmes for negligence.

California Appellate Court Affirms Finding of No Liability for Assault Against Man Outside Ozzy Osbourne Concert

April 21, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion issued by the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit could meet his burden upon a summary judgment motion. In this case, the court focused on the causation element of the plaintiff’s negligence claims. The defendants’ alleged negligence must have directly caused the plaintiff’s resulting injuries. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s own admissions regarding the attack that took place, and it concluded that the plaintiff had not sufficiently met his burden to show a triable issue of fact, defeating the defendant’s summary judgment motion.James Maddalena was assaulted outside the San Manuel Amphitheater, where an “Ozzfest” music festival was going to take place. On the day of the incident, Mr. Maddalena met his friend in a crowded picnic area near the VIP parking lot. Mr. Maddalena’s friend identified a man who had an extra ticket, and Mr. Maddalena approached the man to inquire about the ticket. The man said he would sell the ticket. Mr. Maddalena turned toward his friend, and when he awoke the next morning, he was in the hospital, having suffered head injuries and lacking a recollection of what had happened. Mr. Maddalena had not met the man before, nor had there been a warning sign to suggest he would be attacked. He later testified that the attack came out of the blue.

California Court Holds Dodger Stadium Not Liable in Slip and Fall Case

April 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit before the California Court of Appeal, a man alleged he suffered injuries when he slipped and fell at Dodger Stadium. The court analyzed whether the Dodgers had knowledge of a dangerous condition and could be held liable.

Plaintiff Fernando Maravilla fell in an aisle during a game at Dodger Stadium. He then brought a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Dodgers moved for summary judgment, noting inconsistencies in Mr. Maravilla’s story about the occurrences and whether he had been standing or walking when he fell.

California Court Holds State Owed no Duty to Protect Child From Falling Tree at Campsite

April 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a Court of Appeal case, the court analyzed the applicable Government Claims Act natural condition immunity statute in a case involving an accident at a campground in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Turning to policy considerations, the court stated that providing immunity for public places, particularly recreational areas, allows for increased availability without the potential liability of defending claims for injuries. Here, the court addressed whether the lower court committed an error in granting summary judgment in favor of the government.

Alana M., a minor, was camping with her family in Portola Redwoods State Park. The park is owned by the State and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). The State has built campsites throughout the park, including Portola Campground. Tanoak trees, indigenous to the area, surround the campground.

Alana was three years old at the time of the accident underlying this case. While the family was sleeping in their tent at a campsite in the Portola Campground, Alana was struck by a tree that fell on the campsite. She suffered brain damage. The tree was 86 to 96 feet tall, and it had snapped and broken three feet from the ground.

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 Finding in Favor of Ice Center Under Primary Assumption of Risk When Ice Hockey Game Spectator Injured by Stray Puck

March 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A recent opinion from the California Court of Appeal addressed the primary assumption of risk doctrine. This doctrine, applied to inherently dangerous activities, holds that there is no duty to eliminate the risks posed by the activity, but there is a duty not to unreasonably increase risks. In this case, the issue was whether an ice center was liable under a premises liability claim when a spectator was injured by a hockey puck while watching a game.

Pagman Khodabandeh and Zubi Khodabandeh brought a lawsuit against Ice Center Enterprises, LLC (Ice Center), alleging that Pagman had been struck by a hockey puck while watching an ice hockey game at Ice Center in San Mateo. The complaint included a cause of action for premises liability and Zubi, Pagman’s mother, alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress.

California Appellate Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Hotel Where Plaintiffs Injured by Independent Security Guards During Election Protested on Hotel Premises

March 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, Second District, the appellate court addressed whether a hotel had adequate foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs injured during a protest. The court also examined whether an exception applied to the general rule that an employer is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor. Analysis centered on the elements of both premises liability and negligence claims, specifically, whether defendants owed a duty to plaintiffs under the circumstances of the case.

Plaintiffs Firouzeh Ghaffarpour and Nabiollah Najafi Moallem appealed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Commerce Plaza Hotel. Plaintiffs contended that the Hotel owed them a duty, and was vicariously liable for the actions of its independent contractor security guards. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing an exception to the principle of nonliability for independent contractors. The court also found Plaintiffs failed to show that the Hotel was directly liable for failing to protect them from criminal assault and battery. According to the appellate court, the Hotel did, however, fail to render aid because it owed a duty to summon aid to Plaintiffs.

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.