Personal Injury

California Court of Appeal Upholds Jury Verdict in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Prove Negligence Substantially Caused the Harm Suffered

March 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal decision, the court reviewed a personal injury case stemming from a fatality suffered at a construction site. In this wrongful death action, the son of the deceased person brought negligence claims against the driver of a truck, the construction company, and the truck hauling service after the truck backed up and hit his father during an asphalt paving project. While the jury found that the driver was negligent, they did not conclude that his negligence substantially caused the harm. On appeal, the court reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations that the trial court abused its discretion regarding the particular jury instructions issued, and that the evidence did not support the verdict.

On June 17, 2010, Paul Michaelson was working as a truck driver for V&J Rock Transport when he backed up his truck and ran over Dan Toste at an asphalting project on State Route 135. Mr. Toste was the project’s general contractor, and he had been standing behind the truck trailer in a blind spot. Mr. Michaelson agreed to take a drug test and tested positive for marijuana, having a high level of marijuana metabolite in his urine.

California Supreme Court Approves Public Entity Design Immunity Defense in Intersection Car Accident Case

March 1, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Supreme Court clarified an issue central to public agency tort defense. A public entity may be liable for dangerous conditions on public property, including roads, but design immunity, an affirmative defense, can shield them. The agency must demonstrate three requirements: a causal relationship between the design and the accident, discretionary approval of the design, and evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan. In this case, the Court analyzed the second element, approval of the design.

Plaintiff Randall Keith Hampton was seriously injured in a collision between his vehicle and another at the intersection of Miller and Cole Grade Roads in San Diego County. While attempting a left turn, Mr. Hampton alleged he pulled forward from Miller Road onto Cole Grade Road. Mr. Hampton and his wife sued defendant Robert Cullen, the driver of the other vehicle. The Hamptons alleged Mr. Cullen’s negligence caused the accident. Mr. Hampton suffered brain injuries and could not recall if he had stopped at the stop sign at the intersection. An on-scene officer of the California Highway Patrol concluded that Mr. Hampton caused the accident when he failed to stop at a stop sign on Miller Road before entering the intersection.

California Court Holds Prevailing Defendants in Personal Injury Lawsuit Can Recover Expert Fees Only When Judgment Entered as to All Defendants

February 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed the rules of law concerning settlements, particularly those involving a lawsuit with multiple defendants. The California Code of Civil Procedure maintains that a plaintiff that does not accept a settlement offer and then does not receive a more favorable judgment may be required to pay the defendant’s expert witness fees. In this case, some of the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit sought to recover their fees before final judgment was entered as to all defendants.

Brian Kahn brought a lawsuit against 20 defendants for his personal injuries. He claimed that as a resident of a mobile home park in San Fernando, he was exposed to hazardous gases due to the defendants’ previous use of the land as an industrial waste disposal site. Before trial, all 20 defendants jointly made an offer to settle the lawsuit for $75,000, according to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Mr. Kahn rejected the offer.

California Court of Appeals Allows Cross-Defendant to Recover Costs in Car Accident Lawsuit, Remands to Determine Reasonable and Necessary Costs

February 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal opinion, the court addressed the issue of cost recovery on behalf of a cross-defendant in an underlying car accident lawsuit. The court analyzed the law providing that a prevailing party in an action may recover costs as a matter of right. In addition, the court analyzed whether the costs to defend the lawsuit were reasonable and necessary to the party’s defense.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs sued Mr. Pritchett, Ford, and Lithia of Fresno, Inc. to recover damages for personal injuries. Mr. Pritchett cross-complained against Ford and Lithia for equitable indemnity.

Mr. Pritchett settled with the plaintiffs, paying his insurance policy limits of $1.5 million, contingent on the settlement being made in good faith. The plaintiffs then dismissed their case against Mr. Pritchett. Lithia settled with the plaintiffs, and the matter went to trial between the plaintiffs and Ford.

California Court Remands Case for Retrial of Insured’s Bad Faith and Breach of Contract Claims

February 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the issue centered on the interpretation of an insurance policy provision for covered causes of property loss. Many insurance policies, from automobile insurance to home insurance policies, include explicit language stating the terms for coverage. In this case, the plaintiff sued his insurance company for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding coverage for water damage to his rental house after it collapsed.

Artyun Vardanyan owned a rental property covered by an insurance policy issued by Amco Insurance Company. On December 6, 2010, Mr. Vardanyan submitted a claim to Amco stating he believed there was water damage to the flooring, caused by the walls. Amco sent an independent insurance adjuster, who then instructed Amco to have an engineer inspect the house.

California Court Upholds Right of Entertainment Center to Recover Attorney Fees from Arcade Game Manufacturer for Defending Injury Claims Brought by Injured Plaintiff

February 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed a fee dispute resting on an underlying personal injury lawsuit.

Plaintiff Hyo Hyun was playing an arcade game, The King of Hammer, when he was struck by a piece attached to the game. The game involved using a hammer to hit a cylinder, achieving the highest score. After using the hammer to hit the cylinder, the hammer “coiled back” and hit him in the nose. There were no staff members from Round One Entertainment, the operator of the entertainment center, providing assistance or instructions regarding the game.

Mr. Hyun was taken to a hospital and suffered a fractured nose and other injuries. He underwent surgery and alleged he still needed plastic reconstructive surgery, a “septoplasty.” Mr. Hyun testified that he experienced constant nose pain and missed a month of work.

California Court Finds Plaintiff Pursuing Premises Liability Claim Did Not Prove Property Owner Knew of Dangerous Condition of Stairwell

February 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal ruled in a negligence and premises liability lawsuit involving whether the defendant had notice of any dangerous condition. Premises liability claims require that in addition to showing the elements of a negligence claim (duty, breach, causation, and damages), there must also be a showing that the property owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition. In this case, the court looked to the evidence presented by the plaintiff concerning the defendant’s notice.

Wilson Dante Perry brought this lawsuit for injuries suffered when he fell on an exterior stairway owned by defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase). Mr. Perry alleged that Chase had negligently designed, developed, operated, and maintained the stairway. This negligence, according to Mr. Perry, caused his fall and resulting injuries. Chase moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Perry could not satisfy his burden of proving a dangerous condition existed on the property, or that Chase knew of such a dangerous condition.

Mr. Perry’s challenge to the summary judgment was based on the trial court’s error in excluding the expert declarations that he submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Perry had not participated in the exchange of expert witness information prior to trial, nor had he designated any expert witness. The trial court sustained Chase’s evidentiary objections and granted the motion for summary judgment on the basis that Mr. Perry had not submitted evidence to dispute the facts that Chase breached no duty of care and had no knowledge of a dangerous condition.

California Court of Appeal Holds Supplier of Mineral Spirit Used in Cleaning Solvent Not Entitled to Component Parts Doctrine Defense

February 8, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a raw materials supplier of mineral spirits was entitled to a defense from tort liability, the component parts doctrine. In this case, the distributor provided a product used in a cleaning solvent that allegedly caused the plaintiffs’ leukemia. The component parts doctrine allows suppliers and distributors of non-inherently dangerous materials to avoid liability. The court discussed the rationale behind the doctrine, stating that the defendant had not shown that their mineral spirits were not inherently dangerous.

Plaintiffs Ernest Brady and David Gibbs both worked as mechanics from 1989 to 2007, and 1973 to 2006, respectively. Part of their duties included degreasing and scrubbing automotive parts, using Safety-Kleen 105 Solvent. In 2008, the plaintiffs brought separate products liability lawsuits against Safety-Kleen and its suppliers. The cases were consolidated, and Calsol was added as a defendant. Calsol was a distributor of mineral spirits to Safety-Kleen between 1993 and 1996.

The plaintiffs alleged causes of action against Calsol for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium. In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended their leukemia was caused by the carcinogen benzene. Benzene was present in the mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen.

California Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Due to Failure to Meet Burden of Proof Regarding Negligence Claim

January 27, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the duty owed by a property owner to individuals on their premises. Generally, a property owner owes a duty to avoid posing foreseeable dangers to those lawfully on their property. One exception is if the property owner had no control over the tortfeasor, such as if they are an independent contractor. The court in this case held that to demonstrate an individual is an independent contractor, both common law and statutory requirements must be met.

Randall Blackwell, the plaintiff in this personal injury lawsuit, alleged he was at the top of a ladder installing rain gutters at a property owned by defendant Ray Vasilas when he stepped onto a scaffolding that collapsed. Mr. Blackwell fell 10 feet onto a pile of bricks, injuring himself.

California Court of Appeal Reverses Judgment Holding Public Utilities Commission Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Personal Injury Claims from Effects of Stray Voltage

January 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed a jurisdictional issue relating to personal injury claims concerning stray voltage from or returning to electrical substations. The issue on appeal was whether the Public Utilities Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s allegations of harm. The court relied upon the California Supreme Court’s three-prong test to determine whether the Public Utilities Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

In a fourth amended complaint, Kathy Seacrist and her son, John McDonald, brought claims of negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability/products liability, implied warranty of fitness, ultra hazardous activity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Palm Desert, as well as Does 5 through 100. Ms. Seacrist owned a house near an Edison substation in Indian Wells. She and her son contended that stray electrical currents left the substation and caused them to suffer medical issues.