Personal Injury

California Court of Appeal Holds Release of Liability Bars Negligence Action in Kickboxing Class Injury

October 15, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a negligence action before the California Court of Appeal, the issue was whether an instructor at a gym increased the risk inherent in the activity and acted in a grossly negligent manner. The court addressed the doctrine of assumption of the risk, evaluating whether the risk of injury was inherent to the sport.

Tonya Honeycutt was injured during a kickboxing class when an instructor at Meridian Sports Club, LLC (Meridian) assisted her in a particular movement. Ms. Honeycutt brought a personal injury action, alleging negligence and gross negligence against Meridian. She claimed that she was injured while a guest at Meridian, since the kickboxing class instructor negligently manipulated her body, causing her knee to snap. Her injury resulted in pain and required surgery. Ms. Honeycutt contended the instructor’s conduct constituted gross negligence. Ms. Honeycutt appealed the summary judgment entered for Meridian.

On appeal, Ms. Honeycutt contended that there was a triable issue of fact because the instructor grabbed her leg, increasing the risk inherent to the kickboxing class. She alleged that this negated the application of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. Ms. Honeycutt also contended that the instructor acted with gross negligence, rendering ineffective the signed release of liability Ms. Honeycutt signed.

California Court of Appeals Reverses Judgment for City as Design Immunity Does Not Apply

September 8, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, in an action for a dangerous condition on public property, the California Court of Appeals held there was a material dispute of fact regarding whether an intersection and crosswalk posed a risk of injury to a pedestrian. In this case, the court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment. The appellate court addressed the government’s affirmative defense of design immunity and held that “add-ons” that are installed after the project is approved are not part of government design immunity.

Griselda Castro and her two children, as well as two other children in her care, were walking in a crosswalk. Ms. Castro pressed the button to activate the warning beacon before crossing, and she saw a vehicle stop. She and the children began crossing the street and were struck by a van. The van driver did not see the warning beacon, nor did he see Ms. Castro and the children. Ms. Castro and the children sustained serious injuries upon impact.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment in Favor of City Due to Public Entity Immunity

September 1, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, a forest ranger in Yosemite National Park, alleged he suffered injuries from a dangerous condition on public property. The plaintiff lived in a residential unit rented from the defendant, the City and County of San Francisco. Allegedly, the dangerous condition was the absence of a fire extinguisher from the plaintiff’s residence. The trial court held liability was precluded by the immunity provided to a public entity for failing to provide or maintain fire protection facilities or equipment.The incident in this case involved a kitchen fire in the plaintiff’s residence. The defendant provided tenants, including the plaintiff, fire extinguishers. Normally, the defendant collected and exchanged the fire extinguishers in the course of one day. But the fire extinguisher in this case had been picked up about one month before the day of the fire. While at the stove, the oil in the plaintiff’s skillet caught fire. He ran to retrieve the fire extinguisher, but it was missing.

The plaintiff unsuccessfully used a baking sheet to try to smother the flames. He then grabbed the skillet and tried to throw it out the door. The spring on the door forced the door to swing back and hit the pan, and burning grease splashed onto the plaintiff’s hand. As the plaintiff jumped down the stairs, the pan hit the stairs and splashed burning grease on his back.

Court of Appeals Reverses Judgment in Favor of California Fitness Center when Failure to Maintain Exercise Machine May Have Contributed to Plaintiff’s Injuries and Potentially Shows Gross Negligence

July 23, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal case, the court determined that a triable issue remained regarding a fitness club’s gross negligence in failing to maintain an exercise machine responsible for a serious injury to a gym member. While the lower court had granted summary judgment for the fitness club, the appellate court found that the evidence demonstrated triable issues, defeating the summary judgment claim.

In this case, plaintiffs Stacey and Ruben Chavez appealed the trial court judgment in favor of 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (24 Hour). They sued 24 Hour for premises liability, ordinary and gross negligence, and strict products liability after Mrs. Chavez suffered a traumatic brain injury while exercising at the fitness center. 24 Hour moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued there was a triable issue regarding whether 24 Hour was grossly negligent. Gross negligence is defined as an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. This form of negligence shows such a lack of care that it may be presumed to show a passive and indifferent attitude toward results.

California Court of Appeals Holds that Professional Negligence Claim Requires the Negligence Have Occurred in the Rendering of Professional Services

July 13, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent premises liability case, the California Court of Appeals reviewed a judgment in favor of a hospital. On appeal, the issue was whether the hospital’s conduct in mopping a floor and failing to warn, resulting in a slip and fall injury, consisted of professional negligence or ordinary negligence. Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), a claim for professional negligence against a health care provider must be brought within three years from the date of the injury, or one year from the discovery of the injury, whichever came first. An ordinary negligence claim provides for a statute of limitations of two years.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that, while walking to her private bathroom in the defendant’s hospital room, she slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor. There were no warning cones, although the floor was wet. The plaintiff knew of the alleged negligence but did not file her complaint seeking damages for personal injury until nearly one year later.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred. The trial court granted the motion and ruled the action was one for “professional negligence,” since the negligence was committed in the act of safeguarding a patient. The trial court found the claim fell under professional negligence because the defendant owed a duty to take appropriate measures for patient safety, rendering services for which the defendant is licensed.

California Court of Appeals Rules in Health Club Injury Case

May 26, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent court of appeals case, Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. (2015), the court had before it the issue of whether to hold liable a health and fitness club for an injury that occurred when a piece of weight-lifting equipment broke and struck the individual who was using it.

When he initially became a member of the club, the plaintiff signed an assumption of risk liability waiver. The waiver contained language stating that 24 Hour would not be liable for any injuries or other harm sustained by the signer, and also that the gym was not responsible for any issues with the equipment, including any products liability claims. Essentially, it attempted to broadly insulate the gym from any sort of liability related to injuries sustained on the premises. The plaintiff signed the waiver a second time when he subsequently upgraded his membership.

California Court of Appeals Says PG&E Failure to Trim Trees Case Can Move Forward

April 24, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals rendered an interesting decision in a recent case, Mata v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 224 Cal. App. 4th 309 (2014), regarding the potential liability of a utilities company on the theory of premises liability for allegedly negligently failing to trim trees near power lines adequately.

In the case, the plaintiffs were the heirs of a decedent who was trimming a redwood tree when he was electrocuted by a high voltage power line of the defendants. The vegetation in the area had reportedly been trimmed in accordance with PG&E’s relevant requirements, but the plaintiffs claimed that those levels were insufficient to ensure proper safety.

Premises liability lawsuits are based on the fact that property owners are required to maintain their property at a certain level of safety. The particular level of safety depends upon to whom the duty is owed, and also upon the nature of the potential hazard.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment in Faulty Brakes Accident Case

April 16, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, Banga v. Midas International Corp., Cal. Ct. App. (2014), the court had to decide the issue of how to consider the awarding of damages in a default judgment case following a car accident.

The lawsuit arose out of a situation in which the plaintiff alleged that after she arranged to have her brakes replaced, and after having to return several times to have her brakes adjusted after unusual noises and other problems, she was involved in a car accident that was reportedly due to faulty brakes. As a result of the accident, she also reportedly had to miss work for several days due to personal injuries. The plaintiff then took her car for inspection at a dealership, which reportedly told her that the company had installed defective rear break pads of an incorrect type, which damaged the rear rotor of her vehicle.

The plaintiff’s complaint had four separate legal causes of action. Following several hearings on various matters, the court considered the plaintiff’s testimony and evidence that she supplied, and it issued a default judgment for the plaintiff against Midas in the amount of $6,861.40.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Written Stipulation in Car Accident Case

April 8, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal stemming from a car accident, Horath v. Hess, 225 Cal. App. 4th 456 (2014), the California Court of Appeals had to decide whether a stipulation to an arbitration award was binding.

The action arose out of a collision in which Horath was injured when Hess’ car purportedly struck the rear of her vehicle. Following the accident, Horath filed a personal injury action against Hess.

In the case, the defendant Hess appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff Horath in the amount of $366,527.22. Hess argued that the trial court erred in entering the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff had stipulated in writing, prior to the arbitrator’s decision, that she would accept $100,000 or the arbitrator’s decision, whichever amount was less, plus allowable costs. He also argued that he was therefore not required to file any motions to correct the award within a certain time period, since the parties had stipulated to such an award.

California Court of Appeals Rules in Car Accident Case Alleging Jury Misconduct with Toy Cars

March 20, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals reached a decision in a tow truck accident case, Threadgill v. Extreme Auto Recovery, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. (2014), in which they had to review a claim of jury misconduct, arising from a deputy’s discovery in the jury deliberation room.

In the case, the plaintiff claimed that he was struck by a tow truck, when he was attempting to get the driver’s attention as his car was being repossessed. The plaintiff claimed that he was standing in between the tow truck and his vehicle when he became injured. The plaintiff went to the hospital following the incident, and was informed that his Achilles tendon was ruptured, which required a subsequent surgery.

At trial, an accident reconstruction expert testified for the defense that there was no way the defendant could have been struck in the manner he described. An orthopedic surgeon also testified for the defense, that it was unlikely that the plaintiff was struck when the injury occurred, and explained how individuals that suffer an Achilles injury like the plaintiff’s often feel as though they have been kicked, when in fact they have not. Additionally, plaintiff’s wife testified that he was standing on the front step, not in between the two vehicles, when the incident occurred.