Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Jury Awards Plaintiff over $400 Million in Recent Product Liability Lawsuit

October 16, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Over the past several years, significant evidence has come to light that there is likely a link between talc-based hygiene products and ovarian cancer. Indeed, manufacturing giant Johnson & Johnson is currently facing almost 5,000 lawsuits brought by women who have developed various types of cancer after years of consistent use of the company’s talc-based baby powder product.

In fact, according to a recent news report, just a few months ago, a jury issued a substantial verdict in a California product liability lawsuit brought against Johnson & Johnson by a woman who claimed that she developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson baby powder. The plaintiff’s claim was not just that Johnson & Johnson products caused her cancer, but also that the company failed to warn consumers about the risks that were known to the company. The verdict – totaling $417 million – consisted of $70 million in compensatory damages and an additional $37 million in punitive damages.

Prior Product Liability Cases Involving Talc-Based Baby Powder

The above-mentioned verdict is one of several that have recently been handed down finding Johnson & Johnson liable for failing to warn consumers of the dangers involved with the use of its baby powder products. Until this most recent verdict, the largest award amount was $110 million. The extent to which Johnson & Johnson will be liable in the nearly 5,000 pending cases remains to be seen.

Wrongful Death Claim Against California Police Department Dismissed on Immunity Grounds

October 12, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

When a Southern California car accident case is filed against a government entity based on the alleged negligent conduct of a government employee, issues of sovereign immunity will often arise. Sovereign immunity is a concept that was built into the Constitution during the formation of the country, and it essentially stands for the proposition that a government entity cannot be sued without its consent.

In California, the state legislature has passed a series of bills that waive sovereign immunity under some circumstances. For example, the California Tort Claims Act contains a broad waiver of immunity and permits lawsuits against government entities in situations in which the negligent act of an employee results in injuries, as long as the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident.

While the California Tort Claims Act grants broad immunity, other statutes limit that immunity. For example, California Vehicle Code 17004.7 grants immunity to law enforcement agencies for injuries or deaths that occur while an officer is in pursuit of a driver whom the officer suspects has violated the law. A recent case discusses section 17004.7 as it pertains to a city’s policy to handle fleeing motorists.

California Premises Liability Case Dismissed on Appeal for Failing to Raise Alternative Theory of Liability at Trial

October 9, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued a written opinion in a California premises liability lawsuit discussing the rule of appellate procedure that any grounds cited on appeal must have been raised at trial. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s case based on the fact that the plaintiff’s theory of liability on appeal (which was only slightly different from the theory of liability at trial) was not raised below.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his wife were looking to buy a rental property and were working with a realtor to help them in their search. The realtor had a home in mind that she thought the plaintiff would like. The home was one that the realtor had previously listed, and it had a pool in the backyard. Prior to listing the home, the realtor conducted a 30-minute visual check of the home, including the backyard and pool. The realtor also arranged for the pool to be emptied and contacted a pool maintenance company to conduct any necessary repairs.

When the plaintiff and his wife went to see the home, the plaintiff climbed atop the diving board that was adjacent to the pool to see over the home’s fence. After about 30 seconds, the plaintiff felt the diving board come loose from its base, and the plaintiff fell into the empty pool, resulting in serious injuries.

Off-Duty Los Angeles Police Officer Arrested after Fatal DUI Accident

October 5, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Late last month, three people were killed in a Southern California car accident involving three vehicles, one of which belonged to an off-duty LAPD officer. According to a local news report covering the tragic accident, the collision occurred on the southbound 605, in West Whittier, just south of Saragosa Street.

Evidently, the off-duty police officer was driving a sports car in the carpool lane of the southbound 605 when he rear-ended a Nissan that was in the adjacent lane. The officer’s vehicle then continued into the next lane, where it struck a Scion. The Nissan caught fire after the impact, and the occupants were unable to escape. Emergency responders pronounced all three occupants dead at the scene. The other driver involved suffered only minor injuries.

Responding police officers noticed that it looked as though the off-duty officer had been drinking, and he was arrested and required to submit to chemical testing. Accident reconstructionists have begun an investigation into the fatal collision, and they believe that the Nissan and Scion were both traveling at approximately 65 miles per hour at the time of the collision. Investigators have not yet determined how fast the off-duty officer’s vehicle was traveling.

California Appellate Court Denies Defense Discovery Request in Workplace Accident Lawsuit

October 2, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District issued an interesting opinion in a California workplace accident case. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss the limitations that a defendant faces when seeking pre-trial discovery in a California personal injury case. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant’s requested discovery was beyond the scope of what was included under the relevant statute, and the request was rejected.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a delivery driver who was scheduled to unload several packages at Stanford University. While he was unloading the packages, a car that had been parked by a Stanford employee rolled down a nearby hill and collided with the plaintiff. He sustained multiple fractures to his right femur and pelvis, and he underwent surgery as a result.

By the following year, the plaintiff had not returned to work and filed a personal injury lawsuit against several parties, including Stanford University, the owner of the vehicle that struck him, as well as the person who parked the vehicle. In a pre-trial motion, several of the defendants filed a motion seeking to compel the plaintiff to undergo a “vocational rehabilitation examination” conducted by one of the defendants’ expert witnesses.

California Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Employer When Inference Could be Drawn that Employee Was Within Scope of Employment at Time Plaintiff was Injured

September 28, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment that had been granted in a California bicycle accident case alleging negligence and respondeat superior liability. The facts indicated that while the plaintiff was riding his bicycle, he collided with the door of the defendant’s personal vehicle when the defendant opened the door. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the defendant and his employer. The employer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the going and coming rule barred the plaintiff’s claim. Since the defendant employee did not have a fixed office location but commuted to work as a territory manager, he drove a rental vehicle. The employer argued that the rental vehicle was the employee’s “fixed place of business” and that his commute included going and coming to the rental vehicle.

The lower court ruled the going and coming rule applied and granted summary judgment because the defendant had been in his personal vehicle when the accident occurred. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the employer had not met its burden of production and that triable issues of material fact remained that defeated the grant of summary judgment. The court stated that they would consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers to determine if a triable issue regarding a material fact remained.

First, the court stated that respondeat superior requires a plaintiff to prove that a tort was committed within the scope of employment. However, the court stated the going and coming rule makes clear that employees are not acting within the scope of employment when they are going to or coming from work.

California Court Holds Surviving Family Members Failed to Establish Triable Issues of Material Fact Overcoming Summary Judgment for Employer in Deadly Vehicle Collision Lawsuit

September 25, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal analyzed an appeal brought by plaintiffs in a California wrongful death case. The plaintiffs included the daughter of a deceased motor vehicle accident victim, as well as the victim’s parents and fiance. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant driver and the employer were legally at fault for the accident that caused the victim’s death. They alleged they suffered injuries and damages due to the defendant driver when his vehicle struck the vehicle of the victim, resulting in her death. The plaintiffs brought claims for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence, as well as a survivorship action. The plaintiffs’ claims against the employer were based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. The employer moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, dismissing the employer from the case and leaving only the defendant driver. The plaintiffs appealed.

On review, the appellate court stated that they view the evidence in a light favorable to the plaintiffs, since they oppose the summary judgment motion. Here, the applicable law involves the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds employers vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of employees within the scope of their employment. According to California law, the “scope of employment” has been broadly interpreted. Generally, those acts that involve the employee’s own business may remove them from the scope of employment unless it appears they could have served their employer.

An exception to the respondeat superior legal doctrine is the “going and coming” rule. According to this doctrine, employees who commute to work are not considered to be within the scope of employment. Their employer, therefore, is not liable for the employee’s torts. However, according to the special errand exception, those employees who are performing an errand as part of their regular duties, or at the request of their employer, may be found to be within the scope of employment. California law requires that errands be part of the employee’s regular duties, or undertaken at the request of the employer.

According to Court, Plaintiff Suffered Similar Harm in California Bus Accident Lawsuit Earlier Litigated, Bars Re-Litigation Claim in Separate Lawsuit

September 21, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently concluded that a plaintiff’s complaint against the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and the San Diego Transit Corporation (MTS) was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This doctrine bars re-litigating the same cause of action between the same parties when there has been a final judgment on the merits. In this lawsuit, the court held that the plaintiff’s two California car accident lawsuits were based on the same primary right to be free from injuries associated with the bus system.The plaintiff in this case alleged that on April 14, 2012, an MTS bus driver negligently operated the bus and that this alleged negligence included letting the bus operate with defects in its video system. She was injured when the bus pulled away from the bus stop as she was banging on the side window of the bus, attempting to get the attention of the bus driver. That case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of MTS, so a final judgment was entered in favor of MTS. Then, the plaintiff filed another action, seeking relief for her injuries arising out of the April 2012 accident. That complaint alleged that a dangerous condition of public property caused her injuries and that the location of the bus stop was a dangerous condition of public property because the bus drivers could not see prospective passengers.

In response, MTS filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was time-barred by the Government Claims Act filing requirement. According to law, there is a two-year statute of limitations period for injuries under the Government Claims Act. They argued that a delay due to the plaintiff’s failure to perform a diligent investigation does not delay the accrual of a cause of action.

California Court Holds Plaintiff’s Claims Against the City of Los Angeles Following a Bicycle Accident Were Not Timely

September 18, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Nine months after an accident on a city-maintained road, the plaintiff brought a personal injury claim for damages against the City of Los Angeles. The Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order set forth by the lower court in that case, dismissing the plaintiff’s Los Angles bicycle accident case and his request to file a late claim. The appellate court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff had not complied with the filing requirements of Government Code section 946.6.

On June 16, 2014, the plaintiff was struck by behind by a vehicle while biking on La Tuna Canyon Road. He suffered serious injuries and was in a coma for one month after the accident. After investigations, the plaintiff’s attorney alleged that, among other things, the City was liable for improperly marked bicycle lanes, which were inadequately maintained. The plaintiff also filed for a petition for an order that would relieve him from the claim filing requirements of section 946.6, on the ground that his failure to present the claims on time resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

The lower court denied the petition and held that the incident report provided to the plaintiff’s counsel was sufficient to identify the location of the accident.

Fatally Injured California Worker’s Dying Declarations Should Have Been Admitted at Trial as Exception to Hearsay Exclusion

September 14, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment in favor of the defendants that had granted their motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ negligence allegations. After a victim suffered injuries at work and eventually died, the relatives brought a negligence claim against his employer and another employee. On appeal, the court assessed whether the trial court had erred in finding there had not been a triable issue of material fact regarding the employer’s negligence. Specifically, the issue was whether the court had wrongly excluded dying declarations that the deceased made concerning details of his accident.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the employer negligently stacked and loaded potato pallets, since they operate a potato packing operation. This negligence caused a pallet to topple on and crush the deceased. When opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs contended that the potato boxes had not been properly wrapped together.

The plaintiffs submitted declarations, which provided the deceased’s version of facts as he told them to relatives while he was in the hospital. The defendants objected to the statements in the personal declarations as hearsay. The trial court analyzed whether the evidence supported the finding that the deceased had been relating facts concerning the cause of his death, rather than a hearsay account of another event, unrelated to his death. The court sustained the objections to the personal declarations and held there was no proof of negligence on the part of the defendants.