Personal Injury

California Court of Appeal Dismisses Plaintiff’s Lawsuit for Damages Following Car Accident Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Cooperate and Intent to Commit Fraud on the Court

April 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court held that the lower court had appropriately ruled in favor of the defendant in a personal injury and property damage claim. In fact, the appellate court determined that the trial court had not erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for having committed misrepresentations to the court and for having attempted to commit fraud on the court by testifying falsely. The appellate court, in affirming this decision, noted the significance of the fact that on appeal, the plaintiff did not support his claims with legal evidence or authority.

The plaintiff in this case, a 73-year-old man, alleged that he suffered a bodily injury and property damage when a car driven by the defendant rear-ended his vehicle. The plaintiff represented himself in the trial court action. In summarizing the procedural history, the appellate court focused on the ways that the plaintiff had not cooperated fully with procedural requirements. For example, the court stated that the plaintiff had not provided expert witness information, nor had he truthfully testified as to his damages. While the facts indicated that a low-speed, minor rear-end collision had occurred, defense counsel stated that the injuries that the plaintiff claimed to suffer were not consistent with the facts of the collision.

In fact, the trial court advised the plaintiff to work to demonstrate that he in fact was harmed and provide an estimate of cost for his treatment, as well as estimated costs for future claims for treatment. The defense asked the plaintiff for a statement of his medical charges (allegedly totaling $63,000), but the plaintiff could not provide these, although he stated there may be over 100 different bills.

Child Assumed Risks Inherent in Skiing and Relatives Not Negligent, According to California Court of Appeal

April 10, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Addressing the legal doctrine of assumption of risk, a California Court of Appeal recently upheld the lower court’s determination that defendant relatives were not negligent concerning the skiing injuries suffered by the 13-year-old plaintiff, their cousin and nephew. In determining that summary judgment had been properly granted, since the plaintiff’s claims were barred under primary assumption of risk, the court found that the defendants had not increased the risks inherent in skiing. The facts associated with the summary judgment motions made clear that the plaintiff, 13 years old, went skiing with his father, uncle, and cousin. The plaintiff’s parents were divorced, and the plaintiff’s father had custody of him for winter break. While he had taken ski lessons before, he had not skied with his uncle or cousin, nor had he truly experienced skiing on lifts other than the bunny slopes.

The plaintiff’s uncle and cousin escorted him on an intermediate, “blue” slope, where he began to ski quickly, and his relatives lost sight of him. After skiing through a rope marking the outside edge of the turn, the plaintiff struck a padded signpost. He fractured his left leg in two places.

In his complaint for negligence, the plaintiff alleged the defendants (his father, uncle, and cousin) had a duty to protect him, supervise and warn him, and prevent him from injuring himself while skiing. He contended the defendants breached this duty. The plaintiff’s allegations of negligence stated he had limited skiing experience. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed their negligence stemmed from their failure to determine his ability to ski before taking him on a blue slope, as well as misrepresenting the difficulty and danger of the blue as compared to green slopes.

Judgment in Favor of Defendant Transit System Upheld in Vehicle Accident Lawsuit, California Appellate Court Holds No Abuse of Discretion When Judge Excluded Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony

April 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently reviewed a decision in favor of the defense in a personal injury lawsuit involving injuries sustained on a bus owned and operated by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). Specifically, the issue was whether the lower court had appropriately excluded expert testimony concerning the rate of speed of a bus operated by the MTS that allegedly turned and caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

In motor vehicle collision lawsuits, expert opinions may be used to support an argument of liability. For example, the accident reconstruction expert in this case set forth an opinion, based on security videos and GPS (global positioning software), that indicated the bus had been speeding above the mandated limit. The lower court had determined that the expert opinion was not sufficiently reliable and should not be allowed into evidence.

On review, the appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard. According to the appellate court, the lower court provided the plaintiff with multiple opportunities to strengthen his opinion that the expert’s conclusion had been reached in a reliable and scientifically accepted manner, but the plaintiff did not do so. The remaining issues before the appellate court focused on the accuracy and reliability of the expert’s analysis.

California Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Beneficiaries’ Claims Following Fatal Aviation Collision; Failure to Allege Facts Supporting a Claim Mandates Dismissal

March 30, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal analyzed the importance of carefully pleading causes of action. In this case, the beneficiaries of life insurance policies sued the insurance company and its agent. They claimed that it was negligence and a breach of contract to fail to provide policies that covered aviation activities. The insured had died in an aviation collision and had sought to provide benefits to his wife and business. But the court here upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs could not allege new facts and new legal theories in opposing a motion for summary judgment. Since they had not pled negligence per se, they could not overcome summary judgment by relying on this doctrine.

The decedent in this case had applied to an insurance company for two life insurance policies, specifically to cover the risk posed by his hobby of flying aircraft. After suffering a fatality in an aviation accident, his surviving spouse and business (both intended beneficiaries of the policies) brought a lawsuit against the insurance agent and the insurer. Among other allegations, they claimed the agent and insurer had been negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff (the surviving spouse) with policies for aviation risk, as her husband had specifically requested.

California Court Holds Defendant was not an “Affiliate” Entitled to Summary Judgment on Negligence and Premises Liability Claims After Tragic Vehicular Accident

March 27, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a tragic accident involving a vehicle undergoing repairs, a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit received a favorable judgment from the California Court of Appeal recently. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of his complaint based on a general release he had signed, immunizing the defendant from liability. The court here concluded that the defendant was not in the protected group of persons, as the term was understood in the release.

The plaintiff in this case brought a lawsuit against an automobile repair shop and the owner for his injuries. He had been retained by the shop to assess why the vehicle would not start. After testing the electrical connection starter, the vehicle ran him over and dragged him through the parking lot of the automobile repair shop, crushing his spine. Earlier, the vehicle had been towed to the auto shop, and the transmission shift linkage had been disconnected in order to tow the vehicle.

After settling his lawsuit with the owner and shop for the $1,000,000 limit of the defendants’ insurance policy, the plaintiff signed a settlement that released the defendants, as well as the defendants’ “affiliates,” from liability. Three months after settling the first action, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant who owned the underlying property from which the owner of the auto repair shop leased the land. Significantly, the owner left vehicles on the property in order for the repair shop to sell them, and the vehicle that injured the plaintiff was one of his vehicles. He sued the defendant for negligence and premises liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and it was granted on the basis that the defendant was an “affiliate” protected by the language in the release.

California Court Upholds Finding that Defendant Not Liable for Incident on Bike Path in Santa Monica, as Plaintiff Had Not Set Forth Uncontradicted Evidence

March 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a collision on a bicycle path in Santa Monica in 2012, a jury found that the defendant bicyclist had not been negligent toward the plaintiff inline skater. The California Court of Ap peal addressed whether the lower court had erred in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff argued that the evidence showed the defendant was negligent when he tried to pass him on the path. Since the jury had returned a verdict that the defendant was not negligent, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and the entry of a partial JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The court had denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Company Owes No Duty to Plaintiffs to Prevent Intoxicated Truck Driver from Loading Truck and Driving, According to California Court of Appeal

February 23, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently held, in an unpublished opinion, that a company that failed to intervene when a truck driver may have appeared drunk while loading their cargo was not liable for the resulting injuries caused by that driver. This opinion focused on the fact that since no special relationship had been alleged, the company could not be liable for its omission (failing to act). In stating that they found no duty on the part of the company, the court noted that it was a harsh rule, the rule of non-liability for nonfeasance.

After a fatal truck accident, surviving family members brought a lawsuit against the truck driver, his employer, and the onion company where the driver loaded his truck. At issue on appeal was whether the lower court had properly found that the onion company was not liable under an entrustment allegation, denying the plaintiffs’ request to amend and allege misfeasance, since the driver had appeared drunk, and the company had not refused to load the truck. In their appeal, the plaintiffs contended that they should have been able to amend their complaint.

California Court of Appeal Holds in Favor of Injured Motorcyclist Hit by Taxi Driver in West Hollywood; Taxi Company Vicariously Liable for Driver’s Acts

February 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The issue of whether a taxi driver was an agent or an employee of a defendant taxi company recently came before the California Court of Appeal. Following a motorcycle crash, the plaintiff in this case had filed a personal injury claim against the taxi driver who crashed into him and the company for which he worked. The trial court had found that the evidence did not support the jury’s finding that the driver was an agent of the taxi company, and it granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence did show agency and supported the verdict. On appeal, the court held that public regulations could be used to determine principal-agent relations, when those regulations require the taxi company to exert control.

While riding his motorcycle through West Hollywood, the plaintiff had been struck by the defendant’s taxi, coming from an opposite direction, which turned left in front of the plaintiff. The defendant driver opened his taxi and set his own hours. He had a contract with the defendant taxi company, and it stated he was an independent contractor.

Weightlifter Assumed Inherent Risk of Injury, California Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Gym

February 16, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court judgment in favor of a gym in a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged product liability, negligence, and premises liability claims. After suffering injuries while lifting weights, the plaintiff in this case sought damages against the gym. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff had a viable product liability claim and found that as a fitness service provider, the gym was not liable for his injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff’s allegations of harm were barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. In this case, the plaintiff had assumed the risk of harm inherent in lifting weights, and the gym had not increased that inherent risk.

The plaintiff in this personal injury lawsuit had been using a “hack squat” exercise machine at the gym in San Francisco. The machine strengthens quadriceps muscles as the user performs squats by raising and lowering legs and pushing the weight apparatus up and down. The machine did not have a “safety brake,” which prevents the weight apparatus from descending to the bottom of the frame if the user cannot return the weight to the starting position. While performing exercises, the plaintiff’s legs got tired, and he could not return the weight to the starting position. As the weight descended, the plaintiff was forced into a “crunched position” and suffered injuries.

California Appellate Court Imputes Knowledge of Dangerous Condition to Defendant Landlords, Overturns Judgment in their Favor

February 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, landlords who had moved for summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff had alleged negligence after tripping and falling down a stairway in the common area of her apartment building. The court focused on whether the trial court had properly found that the defendants lacked notice of the alleged defect, which is a required element of a plaintiff’s negligence claim. Concluding that the evidence showed a triable issue of material fact remained both on whether the stairway was a dangerous condition and whether the landlords had notice of the condition, the appellate court reversed the judgment.

The plaintiff alleged she had tripped on the metal “nose” of a stair and fallen down the stairway at the defendants’ property. In her complaint against the defendants, the plaintiff alleged that the stairways had been diligently maintained, operated, designed, and constructed. She claimed that she had not been warned about the dangerous condition.