Personal Injury

California Court Upholds Judgment Because Evidence Supported Jury’s Determination that Defendants’ Negligence Had Not Been Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiffs’ Injuries

October 20, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal affirmed a jury’s finding that the defendants in a premises liability lawsuit had not caused the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. In this case, the court found that the jury did not err in holding that the landlords had been negligent, but their conduct had not been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries. The court looked at the standard that requires a judgment to be supported by substantial evidence and found that in this case, that standard had been met.

On appeal, the court stated they view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Here, the facts indicated that Alexandra Lake and her six-year-old daughter lived in a rented apartment in Tiburon, California. The Morphews owned the property and rented out the unit, as well as three others.

In 2010, Ms. Lake’s daughter Jazea fell from the second to last step on an exterior staircase leading from the street level to the entrance to Ms. Lake’s unit. Jazea hit her head on a metal gate at the bottom landing. Neither the stairs nor the handrail were in compliance with the building code. Jazea had abrasions on her forehead, and her cheek was slightly swollen.

Man Injured in Fall on Steps Outside Apartment Not Entitled to Future Damages; California Court Holds Jury’s Award was Supported by Substantial Evidence

October 13, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In this recent opinion, the California Court of Appeals addressed an appeal brought by the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit following a fall from the steps outside his apartment complex. The court reviewed the rules of law concerning damages and held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s award.

Plaintiff Kazimierz Sokol brought a lawsuit for personal injuries after suffering injuries on stairs outside his apartment. Defendant Anna K. Rosciszewski, his landlord, stipulated that she had been negligent. After a trial, the jury found Ms. Rosciszewski’s negligence was a substantial cause of Mr. Sokol’s injuries. They awarded Mr. Sokol damages of $36,474.89 for past medical expenses and $5,000 for past pain and suffering. Mr. Sokol was not awarded any damages for future losses.

Mr. Sokol appealed, contending that the damages award was inadequate as a matter of law. The court reviewed the medical bills as well as the opinions of a vocational rehabilitation counselor and a damages expert. At issue was whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

California Court Holds Injured Woman’s Legal Claim Fails Because Concrete Slabs in Patio Did Not Pose Hazard to Reasonable Person

October 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal of an underlying premises liability lawsuit, a California court affirmed a judgment in favor of the owner of a winery after the injured plaintiff alleged she fell and suffered injuries. Noting that there is no bright line rule regarding whether a condition is dangerous or defective, the court stated that an alleged defect is not trivial if it would be sufficiently dangerous to a reasonably careful person.

In this case, plaintiff Lorna Good allegedly fell at a winery and suffered injuries, fracturing her foot and wrist. The winery was owned by OGB Partners, and Ms. Good had been to the location 10 to 12 times in the previous nine months. On a warm, clear evening, while watching a concert, Ms. Good fell while wearing four-inch stiletto heels.

Ms. Good brought a lawsuit against OGB for premises liability and general negligence. OGB moved for summary judgment, submitting photographs and contending that the patio had been well-lit on the night of the alleged accident. The trial court heard arguments on the summary judgment motions and ultimately granted the motion in favor of OGB. The court stated that summary judgment is to be granted when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants moving for summary judgment must show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment and Punitive Damages Award in Favor of Man Assaulted and Injured in Venice Restaurant

October 6, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In this recent opinion, a California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of an injured individual who brought a lawsuit against a man who allegedly attacked him at a restaurant in Venice, California. The injured plaintiff also sued the restaurant, the security guard, and the company for which he worked. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the battery and negligence causes of action, and the judge assessed punitive damages against the defendant who was the alleged aggressor. On appeal, the defendant contended that the judgment should be reversed, due to insufficient evidence supporting both the verdict and the punitive damages.

After being attacked inside the Venice restaurant by defendant Donald Hartunian, Dale Johnson contended that he suffered injuries to his knee, including a torn ACL. Since there were several different defendants in this case, after the issue of punitive damages was bifurcated for trial, the matter went to the jury on the theories of: (1) premises liability and negligence of the bar; (2) negligence of the security company; (3) negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the security guard; and (4) negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the alleged aggressor, defendant Donald Hartunian.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the bar, the security company, and the security guard on all the causes of action, but it found against Mr. Hartunian on the battery and negligence causes of action. They apportioned 85 percent of the fault for Mr. Johnson’s damages to Mr. Hartunian and 15 percent to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson was awarded $96,000 in damages.

California Court Upholds Verdict in Favor of Injured Explosion Victim Against Owner/Builder of Property

September 30, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether an individual who hired a pool contractor to build a pool and spa at his home was negligent and liable for injuries suffered by one of the contractor’s employees. In this case, the court reviewed whether the evidence supported a determination that the defendant negligently exercised control over safety conditions, and it ultimately upheld the verdict in favor of the injured plaintiff.

Jeffrey Callaghan hired Dunn’s Designer Pools, a landscape and pool contractor, to build a pool and spa at his house in Coachella Valley. He acted as the owner-builder for his property, which means he obtained the permits for the job and was responsible for the construction of the pool. A Dunn employee, Victor Regalado, was injured while installing a propane-fueled pool heater. Mr. Regalado brought a lawsuit against Mr. Callaghan for negligence and premises liability. A jury found that Mr. Callaghan had been negligent and assigned 40 percent fault to him, ultimately rendering judgment against him for $3 million.

Defendant Property Owner Not Liable for Fatal Injuries to Tree Trimmer; California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment Holding No Breached Duty of Care

September 16, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a judgment in favor of the defendants in a lawsuit following a fatal accident. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing an element of their negligence claim, the breach of a duty of care, and it affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of the defendants.

Roque Valdez worked on weekends as a landscaper and tree trimmer and was unlicensed. Over about 20 years, he trimmed many trees, including large trees. After a tree branch fell from a tall tree on the defendants’ property, Mr. Valdez’s associate, Luis Contreras, offered a business card to the defendants and told them that Mr. Valdez and he had been trimming trees for 10 years. Before beginning their work, Mr. Valdez and Mr. Contreras were aware that the tree limbs were positioned near power lines. They discussed the danger, with the electrical lines being open, obvious, and visible. Mr. Contreras died from electrocution when he was cutting a tree limb that came into contact with a power line. The coroner’s laboratory analysis of blood samples showed his blood alcohol level was between 0.20 and 0.26 percent. The level of intoxication opined by a forensic toxicologist retained by the defendants was 0.21, about three times the California legal limit for driving.

The plaintiffs included evidence from a board certified master arborist, who offered his opinion that a licensed arborist should have been hired, due to the tree’s size and species. He contended that by not hiring a certified arborist, the defendants violated the standards for tree care by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

California Court Finds Landlord Did Not Owe Duty of Care in Lawsuit Following Drowning Accident

August 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit following a devastating drowning accident of two toddlers, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant landowner. The issues before the court in this appeal included standing, or the ability of the plaintiff to pursue legal claims against the landowner and renter of the property, as well as whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the landlord owed a duty of care.

Jason Bradford brought a lawsuit against Terrence Mann, individually and as a trustee of the Terrence W. Mann Trust, for negligence and wrongful death after the death of his two children in a swimming pool on Mr. Mann’s rental property. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Mann, finding that Mr. Bradford could not establish causation for his negligence claim and could not prove neglect by Mr. Mann for the wrongful death claim, nor did he have standing to pursue his wrongful death claim.

Mr. Bradford contended Mr. Mann owed him a duty of care regarding his toddler children, and triable issues remained as to whether Mr. Mann’s conduct as a landlord breached that duty.

California Appellate Court Holds No Liability for Contractor in Slip and Fall Lawsuit, Due to “Accepted Work” Doctrine

July 19, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a premises liability case, the California Court of Appeal recently reviewed whether a contractor that performed tile work for a property management company could be held liable for injuries suffered by an individual who slipped on the wet tiles. After slipping and falling, the plaintiff in this case brought a lawsuit against the property manager, which then filed a cross-complaint against the contractor. The trial court denied the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, but after review, the appellate court vacated the order and directed the lower court to issue a new order granting the motion for summary judgment based on the “accepted work” doctrine.

Connie Rogers was the plaintiff in a slip and fall case involving PMB, a Limited Liability Company and property manager, and Topline Supply, Inc. Topline had contracted with PMB to provide renovation services, including installing tiles on a handicapped access ramp. Topline was not named as a defendant, but PMB filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and added Topline. Then, Topline made a summary judgment motion based on the “accepted work” doctrine.

The trial court denied the summary judgment motion on the ground that the “accepted work” doctrine did not absolve a contractor from liability if they had been hired by a third party.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Holding in Favor of City Because Minor Defect in Sidewalk was Trivial

July 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a judgment in favor of the City of Berkeley and a company that owns a market, the California Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion in a trip and fall lawsuit. The issue before the court was whether the defect in the sidewalk, a three-quarter of an inch offset, constituted a trivial defect. Generally, property owners are not liable for injuries caused by trivial defects that would not injure a person using the sidewalk with ordinary care.

Plaintiff Helena Tiainen-Bennett tripped and fell at around 5:00 p.m. in April 2010 while walking on a sidewalk abutting the parking lot of a market owned by defendant KRGW Fujimoto LLC (KRGW). It was dry on the surface area near the accident site, and the plaintiff alleged that her fall took place when her right foot hit an offset sidewalk slab. She fractured her knee and elbow and required surgery for both.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants and alleged a cause of action against KRGW for negligent management of the property next to the sidewalk. The plaintiff contended the City maintained a dangerous condition of public property.

California Court of Appeal Finds Plaintiffs Failed to Show Unsafe Condition and Landlord Duty Regarding Water Heater Temperature Responsible for Burns

July 8, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, a California Court of Appeal analyzed whether a lower court properly dismissed a plaintiff’s allegations of negligence concerning a landlord’s failure to discover the high temperature of the water heater and reduce that temperature. The plaintiffs claimed that their expert testimony had been limited, resulting in prejudice, and that the trial court failed to provide a jury instruction on the duty owed by a property owner to inspect and repair.

Susana Petikyan was scalded by the hot water in the shower of her mother’s rented apartment, owned by Elk St. Properties. At the time of the incident, Susana stepped into the shower and turned on just the hot water, and it scalded her within 15 seconds. The apartment was part of a 13-apartment complex and had a single water heater. It was unclear what the temperature of the water was at the time it scalded Susana. One expert opined it may have been between 130 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit, while another measured the water at 120 degrees Fahrenheit.