Slip & Fall

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 Court of Appeal Finds Condition Outside Pacific Palisades Vons Market Not Dangerous, Plaintiff Not Entitled to Damages for Slip and Fall Accident

August 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal addressed whether a lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, a supermarket and a contractor involved in sidewalk construction, in a premises liability lawsuit. At issue in this case was whether the condition of the sidewalk outside the market was a dangerous condition. This first step in the analysis also required consideration of whether the condition was open and obvious, since property owners are not generally liable for those conditions that a reasonable person would avoid.

Plaintiff Jessica Overwise brought a premises liability lawsuit against Vons Companies, Inc. and John M. Frank Construction, Inc. Ms. Overwise was injured outside a Vons supermarket in Pacific Palisades when she stepped on the edge of the curb near a warning strip and twisted her ankle, falling forward and suffering a broken wrist and bruising over her entire body. She filed a lawsuit against Vons, alleging premises liability and negligence, and then she amended the complaint to add the contractor responsible for constructing the sidewalk, Frank Construction.

Both Frank Construction and Vons moved for summary judgment. Frank Construction contended that Ms. Overwise alleged a design defect rather than a construction defect. Vons argued that the warning strip where Ms. Overwise fell was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law, and if it was, it was open and obvious, or a trivial defect.

California Appellate Court Holds Plaintiffs in Slip and Fall Case Unreasonably Delayed in Amending Complaint to Add Proper Defendant

July 29, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In the second appeal in a slip and fall lawsuit, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the plaintiffs had unreasonably delayed in adding the sub-lessors of the property in which the alleged incident took place to the lawsuit. The issue was when the plaintiffs knew of facts that gave rise to a cause of action against the defendants, and whether the newly named defendants demonstrated prejudice by the late amendment.

Oscar Albillo and his wife, Blanca Albilla, brought a lawsuit against Ports O’Call Village after Oscar tripped and fell at the entrance to the Ports O’Call Restaurant Corporation (POC). The Albillos’ complaint alleged negligence and loss of consortium. The case went to trial in 2014, and the court granted POC’s motion for a nonsuit on the ground that the accident took place on property sub-leased by POC to Sam and Sung Cho. The court found the Albillos did not prove POC, the landlord, had actual notice of the dangerous condition.

Before the trial court granted POC’s motion for nonsuit, the Albillos moved to amend their complaint to substitute the Chos as Doe defendants. The Chos moved to strike the amendment, and the court granted the motion. On appeal, the issue was whether the Albillos knew enough facts to give rise to a cause of action against the Chos, and whether the Chos presented sufficient evidence of prejudice by the belated amendment.

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 Opinion Holds Wooden Walkway in Santa Monica Constitutes “Trail,” Providing the City with Immunity from Liability

July 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of whether the City of Santa Monica was liable for injuries sustained by a woman walking near the Santa Monica Pier. In this lawsuit, the City contended it was immune from liability under the Government Code section providing that public entities are not liable for injuries caused by trails used for recreational purposes. The issue in this case was whether the wooden walkway constituted a trail as defined by the Code.

In 2012, on an evening in June, Alla Afremova was strolling north on the Santa Monica beach with her family. They noticed a wooden walkway to the east and decided to take this walkway to the paved area en route to the Santa Monica Pier and the Ferris wheel. Ms. Afremova fell while walking on the raised plank and sustained injuries. She then filed a complaint against the City of Santa Monica for premises liability and personal injury.

The City moved for summary judgment on the ground that Ms. Afremova’s motion was barred by trail immunity and design immunity, set forth by the Government Code sections 831.4 and 830.6. Regarding trail immunity, the City contended that the wooden walkway is used for walking and viewing the Pacific Ocean, as well as beach access.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Town When Plaintiffs Failed to Create Triable Issue of Fact Regarding Dangerous Condition of Property

June 20, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a judgment in favor of the Town of Moraga in a premises liability case. In this opinion, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ claims that the Town had maintained a dangerous condition of public property related to a barricade near a street parade for the Fourth of July. Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations and affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment.

On appeal, the court stated that Government Claims Act, Section 835, sets forth conditions that may hold a public entity liable for injuries. Public entities can be liable if the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, the injury was caused by the condition, and the kind of injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the dangerous condition. Public property is in a dangerous condition according to the Act when it is physically damaged, deteriorated, or defective in a way that endangers those using the property.

On July 4, 2010, plaintiffs Kathleen and Benjamin Bjornstad left their home in the Town of Moraga, California, to watch fireworks at a display. Stephen Holbrook drove his mobility scooter while the others walked, since Stephen has been unable to walk since the mid-1990s. They took the same route they had traveled for more than 10 years on their way to the fireworks display.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of City When Plaintiff Failed to Show Knowledge of Dangerous Condition of Sidewalk

June 13, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A California Court of Appeal recently addressed a lawsuit involving allegations of a dangerous condition on public property. At issue in this opinion was whether the defendant, the City of Burbank, had notice of the alleged dangerous condition – an uneven sidewalk. The court reviewed the allegations under the Government Claims Act, which governs potential liability for public entities.

In the afternoon of September 7, 2011, Sarah Moore was walking in the City of Burbank, near her apartment, when she tripped and fell on a raised edge of the sidewalk. The concrete portion of the sidewalk had been uplifted about two inches by tree roots. Ms. Moore had moved to the area only a week earlier and could not recall if she had noticed the uneven sidewalk. She fell on her left hand and both knees, breaking the bones in her left wrist and requiring surgery and therapy.

Months later, Ms. Moore submitted a claim to the City for more than $3 million for her injuries resulting from the incident. A City supervisor inspected the sidewalk and subsequently replaced it. Ms. Moore then filed a complaint alleging negligence, claiming the City knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk, created the condition, and caused her injuries.

California Court of Appeal Reverses Judgment in Favor of Cable Company When Triable Issue Remains Regarding Duty to Remedy Exposed Cable

March 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The court of appeal recently reviewed a judgment in favor of a cable company in a personal injury lawsuit involving allegations of negligence. In this case, the court set forth the four elements of a negligence claim, including duty, breach, causation, and damages. Their analysis focused on whether the cable company owed a duty to the plaintiff, and whether the company had notice of the allegedly defective condition that gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court reversed the summary judgment adjudication in favor of the cable company, finding that triable issues of fact remained.

John Reis sued Time Warner NY Cable, LLC after suffering injuries when he tripped over a Time Warner cable that emerged from the ground in his yard in Chino Hills. Time Warner moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it could not be held liable because it did not install the cable, nor did it breach any duty to Mr. Reis respecting the cable.