Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Recently, the California Court of Appeal held that the defendant in a personal injury lawsuit could not be held liable because they did not own the property on which an alleged dangerous condition caused the victim’s death. California law requires that to be liable for a dangerous condition, one must own or control the property at the time of the injury.  In this particular case, the property was allegedly owned by the government, and the dangerous condition existed in the remnant of what was called Dennett Dam, near the Tuolumne River.  The court found that since the government did not own the dam for the purposes of liability, they could not be found liable for the plaintiffs’ loss.

Keith Goddard and Kirsty Monroe, the children of Leonard Goddard, sued the State of California after their father drowned in the Tuolumne River, downstream from the former Dennett Dam. Mr. Goddard was 56 years old at the time of the fatal accident, and he was caught in a current over a breach in the remnant of the Dam.  The plaintiffs alleged that the State and other public entities were liable for their father’s death, due to a dangerous condition of public property, under Government Code section 835.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) answered the complaint on behalf of the State and moved for summary judgment.  They contended they could not be liable under section 835 because they did not control or own the dam remnant. They also alleged that since Mr. Goddard’s death was caused by a natural condition, they were immune from liability under section 831.2.

Continue reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed whether governmental immunity applied to bar the personal injury claims brought by the parents of a fatally injured student bicyclist. Government Code section 831.4. provides a recreational trail immunity, and on appeal the issue was whether the causes of action for a dangerous condition of public property and wrongful death were barred as a matter of law, providing the Regents of the University of California absolute immunity.

Adrian Burgueno was a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He lived off campus and commuted to the university on his bicycle. He traveled  to campus on the Great Meadow Bikeway, a paved bike path. This separate bicycle transportation path allows travel to and from the central campus, and a number of bicycle accidents have taken place on the Bikeway.

Continue reading ›

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the doctrine of primary assumption of risk as it applies to an employee injured in their line of work.  The court discussed  the fireman’s rule and the veterinarian rule to explain that there is no duty of care owed to those who are harmed by the very hazard posed by their occupation. Relying on the facts of this particular situation and policy considerations, the court barred the injured employee’s recovery.

The plaintiff, Stephen Moore, worked as a United Parcel Service (UPS) driver, and he was injured when he lifted a box with an inaccurate weight label.  Mr. Moore had worked for UPS for over 15 years, and he had lifted heavy boxes as part of his position as a UPS delivery driver. UPS instructed their employees on proper lifting techniques and trained them to test the weight of packages before lifting them.
Continue reading ›

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the liability of the proprietors of a horseback riding ranch for an accident involving a rider and a known “bad” horse. In assessing the duty owed by the ranch owners, the court reviewed case law concerning assumption of risk and the distinct liability based on the role a specific defendant plays when an accident takes place in a recreational activity.

In this case, plaintiff June Carter was an experienced equestrienne who had just ridden a horse named IB Brilliant out of an arena at Secret Valley Farm. The Farm is a horse facility owned and operated by defendants Gerald and Anita Heitzler. Colton, a horse known to be dangerous and unpredictable, ran into the metal fence that surrounded the Farm. Ms. Carter was still astride IB Brilliant, who got spooked and threw her off. Ms. Carter alleged that the defendants negligently managed or entrusted the errant horse, and that they failed to warn her or take precautions in the use of the horse.

Continue reading ›

In a personal injury case involving allegations of negligence on the part of the County of San Diego, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the government was liable for injuries suffered by a teenager using a rope swing located in an open space area. Government Code section 831.7 provides immunity to the government from liability to those injured while participating in “hazardous recreational activities.”  There are exceptions to this immunity, and the court analyzed whether those exceptions applied in this case involving a hazardous activity.

Benjamin Casteen was a high school student at the time of the accident.  He had used rope swings at Damon Lane County Park for years. While swinging on a tree above a ravine, the rope broke, and Mr. Casteen fell into the ravine, suffering injuries to his head and face.  Mr. Casteen stated that his custom and habit was to visually check the rope and branch before taking a small swing to test the rope.

Mr. Casteen sued the County of San Diego on the grounds of general negligence as well as maintenance of a dangerous condition under section 835, arising from actual and constructive notice of the defective condition of the rope swing, failure to maintain the swing, and failure to protect and provide a warning.  The County asserted its immunity under section 831.7 and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that a disputed material fact remained as to whether the County deposited debris in the ravine and whether this constituted a separate danger not included in the hazardous activity of rope swinging.

Continue reading ›

California law provides a remedy for injuries due to a landowner’s action or inaction if it creates an unreasonable risk of harm.  In these premises liability cases, courts may interpret the extent of the injury and whether it was foreseeable that the victim would be harmed.  A California Court of Appeal addressed the harm from secondary exposure to asbestos, and whether the wife of a man who was exposed to asbestos could bring a claim against her husband’s employer.

Frank Beckering was a machinist for Shell Oil Company for nearly four decades. He died 17 years after retiring, and four years later, his wife sued Shell. Wanda Beckering brought a premises liability case, although she had not visited the Shell locations where her husband worked. Her allegations were based on the fact that after she laundered her husband’s work clothes for decades, she developed mesothelioma.

Continue reading ›

In a recent case involving the assumption of risk doctrine, the California Court of Appeals addressed whether the Haunted Hotel breached their duty to a patron who fled from fear and was injured while running.  Assumption of risk is based on the theory that an individual assumes a risk inherent in the fundamental nature of the activity. However, if the risk has been unreasonably increased beyond those inherent to the activity, there may be a legal remedy for the injured individual.

The facts of this case demonstrate that Scott Griffin purchased a ticket for the Haunted Trail, an outdoor haunted house attraction.  While patrons walk through the trail, actors jump out of dark spaces while holding props like chainsaws and severed body parts.  Mr. Griffin believed he was near the exit of the trail when he was unexpectedly confronted by a final scare. This scare is entitled the “Carrie” effect because of its timing near the end of the attraction.  An actor holding a chainsaw (without a chain) approached Mr. Griffin and frightened him. While Mr. Griffin ran away, the actor gave chase, which is what they often do during the attraction. Mr. Griffin fell and was injured while fleeing. He then sued the Haunted Hotel, alleging negligence and assault.

Continue reading ›

A recent negligence and premises liability case before the California Court of Appeals centered on whether an exception applied to the general duty of care.  A possessor of land owes a duty to use reasonable care to maintain their property, even in the presence of a dangerous condition caused by a factor that the landowner does not possess or control.  In this case, the defendant controlled the land where the dangerous condition, an outdoor dining area, existed.  The defendant did not control the instrumentality creating the hazard, a soccer ball.Campclar Corporation is the owner and operator of the Spitfire Grill, a restaurant located across the street from a soccer field at the Santa Monica Airport Park. While sitting at an outdoor table eating, Ms. Neira was struck in the head by a stray soccer ball that flew over the fence.  Ms. Neira received emergency medical care and suffered hearing loss and other injuries.

Ms. Neira sued Campclar for negligence, premises liability, and strict liability. She alleged that Campclar knew or reasonably should have know that customers seated in the restaurant’s outdoor dining area would be exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm from stray soccer balls kicked from the soccer field.  In support of her claim, Ms. Neira alleged that she was negligently seated in a risky area and that Campclar failed to warn her of the risk. As a result, she suffered an injury. In her premises liability cause of action, Ms. Neira alleged that Campclar negligently maintained the restaurant in a dangerous condition.

Continue reading ›

In a premises liability case before the California Court of Appeal, the court reversed a grant of summary judgment based on the remaining triable issue of whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the scope of his employment.

Monnie Wright worked as a correctional officer at San Quentin State Prison, and he lived on the San Quentin premises. He rented a unit from his employer, the State of California.  He lived there voluntarily, since it was not a condition of his employment with the State.  He paid market rate rent and did not receive a discount or benefit for living on the property.

While walking to work in the early morning, Mr. Wright fell and was injured when a concrete step collapsed beneath him.  He sought and received workers’ compensation in the form of medical expenses and disability payments.

Continue reading ›