Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

Head-On Collisions on California Highways

November 24, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Among all the types of accidents that occur on California highways, none are more serious than head-on accidents that occur on the highway. Not only do these California car accidents present a grave risk that someone will be seriously injured or killed, but also they are puzzling because highways are commonly divided, and traffic traveling in opposite directions is normally separated by thick concrete barriers.

Indeed, most California wrong-way accidents that occur on that state’s freeways involve a driver getting on the highway going the wrong direction. Of course, anyone who has driven in Southern California knows that highway on- and off-ramps are well marked, making the possibility of a mistake fairly low. However, the fact remains that dozens of motorists each year negligently cause wrong-way accidents. Most of these drivers are intoxicated.

Earlier this week, four people died in two separate wrong-way car accidents, one in Porter Ranch and the other in Baldwin Park. In each of the accidents, a driver was traveling in the opposite lane of travel for some distance before smashing into the other vehicle. One of the accidents was preceded by numerous phone calls to California Highway Patrol, warning them about the wrong-way driver. According to a local news report covering the two fatal accidents, drugs and alcohol were suspected to be a factor in at least one of the accidents.

Plaintiff’s Case Permitted to Proceed Against Private Company Responsible for Maintaining Traffic Lights

November 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California car accident case requiring the court to discuss whether the lower court was proper to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim in a pre-trial motion for summary judgment. The lower court based its decision to dismiss the case on its finding that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Ultimately, on appeal, the court concluded that the defendant may have owed the plaintiff a duty of care, and therefore it reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident when the vehicle in which she was traveling entered an intersection during a power outage and was struck by another motorist. At the time of the collision, the traffic light was not illuminated despite the fact that the traffic light had a back-up battery power source.

The defendant was a private company that was contracted by the city to perform the necessary maintenance on the back-up battery systems in all of the city’s traffic lights. Evidently, earlier in the year, the back-up battery system in the traffic light at the intersection where the accident occurred was failing to hold a charge. The defendant eventually installed a new battery pack in the light in August. However, a new battery was not placed in the unit, so the light was left without a functioning back-up power source.

California Appellate Court Discusses Employer Liability in Recent Car Accident Case

November 16, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California car accident case involving the allegedly negligent acts of an employee and whether his employer could be held liable for the wrongful death of the plaintiffs’ loved one. After discussing the doctrine of respondeat superior and applying it to the facts of the case, the court ultimately determined that the employer could not legally be responsible for the employee’s actions. Specifically, the court noted that the “going and coming” rule precluded liability because the employee was traveling to work when the accident occurred.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving family members of a woman who was killed when the vehicle in which she was riding was struck by another driver while crossing the San Mateo Bridge. The other driver was employed by the defendant.

On the day of the accident, at around 3:30 a.m., the employee was driving to work in San Francisco when he struck the vehicle carrying the plaintiffs’ loved one. The employee worked the night shift, which began at 7 p.m., and it was undisputed that this trip to work was not for the employee’s regular shift.

Court Allows Employee’s Workers’ Compensation Claim Despite Substantiated Claims of Dishonesty

November 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California workers’ compensation case requiring the court to determine if an employee’s misdemeanor conviction for workers’ compensation fraud per se precluded him from recovering benefits for his injury. The court concluded that the employee may still be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, notwithstanding the fraudulent conduct, if there is independent evidence of a compensable injury.

The Facts of the Case

The claimant was an employee at a car dealership. One day, while on the job, the employee slammed his hand in the trunk of a vehicle. No bones were broken, but the employee was unable to continue work due to the pain in his hand and shoulder. The employee filed a workers’ compensation claim.

For four years, the employee received workers’ compensation benefits and also was provided with medical care. However, the evidence suggested that the employee was not entirely receptive to the medical treatment provided and would at times refuse to allow the doctors to examine him or perform certain exercises on his hand. Notwithstanding his lack of cooperation, the employee was treated with opioid painkillers.

California Appellate Court Invalidates Arbitration Agreement Based on Its One-Sidedness

November 9, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a California appellate court issued a written opinion in an employment discrimination case involving the validity of an arbitration clause. The case is relevant to California nursing home abuse victims who may have signed an arbitration agreement prior to their injury, and who believe that the defendant may assert arbitration as a defense.

What Is an Arbitration Clause?

An arbitration clause is a contractual term by which the parties agree to settle a dispute through binding arbitration rather than through the court system. In theory, arbitration can present benefits to both sides, including decreased cost of litigation and quicker resolution of claims. However, in effect, arbitration clauses are often written to favor the party that writes them.

Issues involving arbitration agreements commonly arise in some California personal injury cases. Cases alleging California nursing home abuse or neglect very frequently involve an arbitration agreement because nursing homes usually include these agreements in the pre-admission contract that must be signed before care is provided.

California Plaintiff’s Failure to File a Timely Expert Certificate Results in Dismissal of Case

November 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California personal injury case brought by a man who was injured when the crane he was operating tipped over. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss the relation-back doctrine and its applicability to the facts at hand. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s late-filed certificate did not relate back to his original filing, and thus his case was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Certificate Requirement

In California, certain cases alleging professional negligence must be accompanied by a certificate from an expert in the field, indicating that in the expert’s opinion, the plaintiff’s case has merit. Alternatively, if there is not time to obtain this certificate before the statute of limitations expires, a party can submit a certificate of excuse asking for additional time. Under the relevant statute, a certificate of excuse must be filed within 60 days of the filing of the case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured when the crane he was operating tipped over. The date of the plaintiff’s injury was May 5, 2014. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim on May 3, 2016 against the company that was providing engineering services at the job site where the injury occurred. The relevant statute of limitations was two years, so the plaintiff filed the case just two days before the deadline.

Assumption of the Risk in California Personal Injury Cases

November 2, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

When someone is injured while playing sports or engaging in another recreational activity, the injured party may be able to seek financial compensation for their injuries against the responsible parties through a California personal injury lawsuit. However, the doctrine of assumption of the risk can act to bar some plaintiffs’ lawsuits when the activity at issue is inherently dangerous and comes with well-known risks.

The idea behind the assumption of the risk doctrine is that plaintiffs are in the best position to avoid known risks associated with certain activities. If a plaintiff choses to disregard a known risk and engage in the activity nonetheless, courts will not hold a defendant liable when a plaintiff is injured due to the presence of a known risk. However, there are exceptions to the assumption of the risk doctrine, one of which is when the defendant creates an additional risk that is not normally present when engaging in the recreational activity.

A recent California personal injury case illustrates one plaintiff’s attempt to establish an exception to the general assumption of the risk rule. While the plaintiff was unsuccessful in convincing the court, the case is important in understanding the assumption of the risk doctrine.

The Workers’ Compensation Program in California

October 26, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Anyone injured while on the job in California may be entitled to receive compensation while they are recovering from their injuries under the California Workers’ Compensation Act (CWCA). Under the CWCA, when an employee suffers a qualifying injury, their employer must cover the employee’s medical expenses as well as provide the employee with ongoing workers’ compensation benefits for the duration of their recovery.

The Requirements of a Workers’ Compensation Claim

After suffering a California workplace injury, an employee should obtain the necessary medical care. In some cases, an employee will need to visit a specific doctor. However, in emergency cases, the employee can seek medical attention at the nearest hospital or medical facility.

The employee should then notify the employer immediately, or within 30 days at the very most, in order to preserve their right to obtain workers’ compensation benefits. In cases in which an employee’s injury has developed over time, the employee should notify the employer as early as practicable. Often, this would be the first time that the injury required the employee to miss a day of work. If an employee does not report the injury in a timely manner, the employer may have grounds to contest the employee’s workers’ compensation application.

Truck Driver Charged in 2016 Palm Springs Rear-End Bus Accident

October 23, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Back in 2016, a fatal accident between a semi-truck and a charter bus claimed the lives of 13 people and injured 31 others. At the time of the accident, the reason why the two vehicles collided was unknown, but authorities could tell that the charter bus crashed into the rear of the semi-truck and that there was a large speed differential between the two vehicles. Due to the high death toll, an in-depth investigation was conducted, the results of which have recently been released.

According to a recent news report, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office has announced that the driver of the semi-truck involved in the accident will face a number of criminal charges for his role in the fatal California bus accident. The charges will include 13 counts of vehicular homicide and additional counts of reckless driving.

The charges were announced after the investigation into the accident was recently concluded. Evidently, the semi-truck driver was driving westbound on Interstate 10 when California Highway Patrol conducted a routine closure of all lanes for construction-related reasons. The semi-truck driver put the vehicle in park and fell asleep. Once CHP reopened the lanes of traffic, the driver remained asleep as surrounding traffic resumed.

California Car Accident Plaintiff Misses Out on Opportunity to Cross-Examine Defense Medical Expert

October 19, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District issued a written opinion in a California car accident case involving the use of a video deposition for a witness who became unavailable during the pendency of the lawsuit. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff’s objection to the use of the video deposition was valid, and if so, whether the video deposition should have been excluded at trial. The court ultimately held that the defendant complied with the applicable court rules and that the video deposition was properly admitted.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a low-speed car accident when the defendant rear-ended him on a California highway. Immediately after the collision, both drivers made their way to the road’s shoulder, where the plaintiff explained that he was not injured. However, once the vehicles were moved to a nearby parking lot, the plaintiff began to complain of severe neck pain.

The plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance, and an X-ray confirmed that no bones were broken. The plaintiff sought medical treatment once, about a month after the accident. No further treatment was sought. Approximately two years later, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained in the accident.