Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Appellate Court Affirms No Evidence of Contact by Phantom Vehicle Supporting Uninsured Motorist Claim After Rear-End Collision

August 3, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

After rear-ending another vehicle that had been stopped, an insured individual sought uninsured motorist benefits from his car insurer. The insurer denied his claim, and the arbitrator denied damages to the appellant. The appellant petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitration award, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court’s denial of his petition, finding it was not an appealable order. Specifically, the appellate court turned to California law, which requires that physical contact support an uninsured motorist claim after a Southern California car accident involving allegations of a phantom vehicle.

The appellant in this case argued that he had been hit from behind and pushed into the vehicle in front of him. He argued that the vehicle that struck him had left the scene immediately. The insurer argued no evidence supported his position he had been pushed into the vehicle in front.

The insurance company inspected the appellant’s vehicle for repairs, which were estimated to total approximately $7,000. The front of the vehicle sustained damage, and there was no damage listed to the rear bumper or trunk. Photographs supported the estimate that the damage focused on the front end of the vehicle.

Appellate Court Holds Trial Immunity Does not Apply in Case Involving Serious Injuries Suffered by Falling Tree Branch While Victim Walked on Path in Mission Bay Park, California

July 28, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s summary judgment motion regarding plaintiff’s claim for dangerous condition of public property. After suffering serious injuries when a tree branch fell on her while walking through Mission Bay, in San Diego, the plaintiff brought a personal injury claim, alleging that the City negligently maintained the tree. The City moved for trial immunity, under Government Code section 831.4. While the lower court granted summary judgment based on this immunity, the appellate court found there had been a disputed issue of material fact as to where plaintiff had been when the branch struck her, and that the claim was based on negligent maintenance of the tree, not the trail.

Dangerous condition of public property includes conditions that create substantial risk of injury when the property is used with due care, in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable it will be used. There must be a dangerous condition of public property, a foreseeable risk of injury, conduct connected to the condition (such as negligence), causation between the condition and injuries, and finally, damages. Plaintiff’s allegation is that the City negligently trimmed tree branches, and was aware of the dangerous condition posed by negligently maintaining branches of the eucalyptus tree. Therefore, the City is liable for harm caused when the branch fell from the tree.

California Homeowner Not Responsible for Tragic Death of Five-Year-Old in Pool

July 24, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an appeal taken in a California swimming pool accident lawsuit following the drowning death of a five-year-old boy, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. The issue before the appellate court was whether the defendants owed a duty of care and whether there was evidence a dangerous condition on their property contributed to the tragic accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.

In this case, the father of the deceased boy brought a general negligence action against the defendants for failing to supervise and pay attention to their child. In their premises liability claim, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants ignored or allowed dangerous conditions in and around the pool. The boy’s mother had left the boy’s grandfather in charge of the boy once he arrived at the party at the defendant’s home. The mother knew that her son did not know how to swim, and her father (the boy’s grandfather) advised the defendant that he would take over supervising the boy. After losing sight of the boy, his grandfather found him underneath the water in the main pool, and efforts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful.

After submitting evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment, the court found in favor of the defendants, since the boy’s grandfather had explicitly agreed to supervise the boy, and the mother had remained on the premises. Despite the declaration of a civil engineer and expert in engineering, the court found that there was not a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the pool was in a dangerous condition. Finally, there had not been evidence that a dangerous condition in the pool caused the boy’s death.

California Court Finds Truck Collision Victim Entitled to $3 Million Award for Costs of Future Surgeries

July 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a California truck accident, the victim in a recent case before the California Court of Appeal pursued a personal injury claim against the truck driver and his trucking company. The lower court awarded the plaintiff $3.3 million for damages, since he suffered serious physical injuries in the collision. After the appellate court had reversed an earlier decision in the victim’s favor, the jury had found that it was reasonably certain the plaintiff would require four future shoulder surgeries. The defendant argued that one surgery was reasonably certain, and the evidence did not support a finding that three other surgeries were required.

The appellate court in this opinion restated the facts, which indicate that at the time of the collision, the defendant driver had been crossing the southbound lanes of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway, heading north. The plaintiff had been driving a minivan southbound when he crashed into the flatbed trailer at about 45 miles per hour. After being extricated from the vehicle, he suffered an open fracture in his left shoulder.

California Court of Appeal Held County Not Entitled to Summary Judgment When Triable Issues Remain Regarding Cause for Tree Fall

July 17, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently upheld the trial court’s denial of a county’s motion for summary judgment in a California personal injury lawsuit involving the Government Code “natural condition immunity” claimed by San Mateo County after a 72-foot diseased tree fell on a sleeping child’s tent, causing catastrophic injuries. The court analyzed whether the campground area had been improved, since that would defeat the natural condition immunity provided to the County by Government Code section 831.2.

Government Code section 831.2 is known as the “natural condition immunity.” It states that neither a public entity nor a public employee may be held liable for injuries caused by natural conditions of unimproved public property. The issue in this case was whether there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the property was “unimproved.”

The campground where the child was injured was in San Mateo County Memorial Park, owned by the County. Over 499 wooded acres make up the park, with trails and campsites that have been cleared of trees. The campground was included in a “developed area” that the County inspected.

California Court Upholds Summary Judgment in Favor of Elevator Maintenance Company After Plaintiff Suffered Injuries in Falling Elevator

July 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed an appeal brought by a plaintiff who alleged his injuries were caused by a defective elevator. Southern California injury lawyers understand that in cases like this, there may be legal claims against more than one defendant. In this case, the plaintiff initially brought legal claims against multiple parties, including the manufacturer and the maintenance company for the elevator.

After stepping into an elevator at the CalTrans building in Los Angeles, the plaintiff in this personal injury case pressed the button for the first floor. According to the plaintiff, the elevator quickly dropped and then stopped between the first and second floors. The plaintiff alleged he was thrown around and landed on his back in the elevator when it abruptly dropped. The plaintiff claimed he suffered knee injuries due to the incident, and he brought legal claims against the elevator manufacturer and the maintenance company that services the elevator.

The plaintiff eventually dismissed his claims for product liability and negligence against the manufacturer, and the remaining defendant (the maintenance company) moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff had not met his burden of showing a material dispute of fact remained.

California Court Finds Plaintiff Assumed Risk Inherent in Horseback Endurance Riding, Not Entitled to Compensation for Injuries Caused by Defendant’s Horse

July 10, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

California personal injury attorneys understand that individuals who participate in certain sports may place themselves at risk of injury. In a recent personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant’s negligent, reckless, or intentional misconduct harmed her. She also alleged that the defendant had an animal with a dangerous propensity. The facts indicate that the plaintiff suffered injuries while endurance horseback riding, and the issue before the California appellate court was whether the plaintiff had assumed the risk inherent in horseback riding, which would bar her claim for recovery. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff had met her burden of showing there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant’s alleged recklessness.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant participated in an organized endurance horseback riding event, with approximately 50 other riders. While stopped at a required checkpoint, the defendant’s horse struck the plaintiff while she was standing on the ground. She suffered injuries and brought this lawsuit against the defendant. After the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, she appealed.

On appeal, the court examined whether the defendant met the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action could not be established, or there was a complete defense to the cause of action. If the defendant meets their burden of production, showing that there is not a triable issue of material fact, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to show a remaining triable issue of fact.

California’s Legalization of Marijuana May Lead to Increase in Motor Vehicle Collisions Caused by Impaired Drivers

July 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

All drivers owe others on the road a duty of care to exercise reasonable caution. When driving, it is negligent to use any substance that impairs your ability to drive. Alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs affect the ability of drivers to safely operate their vehicles and may cause harm to others on the road. When a driver’s negligence causes an accident and resulting harm, injured victims may hold the driver accountable in a legal claim.

California motor vehicle collision claims involving marijuana use by drivers are rising. Since marijuana has been legalized, it is likely the state will see an increase in car accidents caused by drivers impaired by smoking or ingesting marijuana. According to a recent insurance study, crash statistics in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado indicate that after legalizing recreational marijuana, there was an increase in the number of car accident claims in those states. After suffering injuries in an accident with a driver impaired by marijuana, victims may recover damages by filing personal injury civil claims against the at-fault drivers.

California Court Holds Evidence that Defendant Left the Scene of Accident After Striking Plaintiff with Automobile Properly Excluded by Trial Court

July 3, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the lower court had properly excluded evidence that the defendant in a pedestrian collision lawsuit had fled the scene of the accident, without rendering aid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that excluding this evidence prejudiced her, since she suffered mental distress due to the defendant’s conduct. The defendant countered that she had already been deemed negligent, and the issue before the jury was damages. The evidence, according to the defendant and affirmed by the appellate court, was not relevant to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s damages.

Together with her husband, the plaintiff brought a complaint against the defendant for negligence and loss of consortium after the defendant struck the plaintiff while she was crossing a street on North Figueroa Avenue in Los Angeles. The defendant admitted negligence but disputed the extent of the alleged damages and injuries. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on negligence and awarded the plaintiffs a net judgment of $876.85. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment.

California Court Holds Homeowners May Be Liable for Harm to Contractor’s Employee When They Failed to Disclose Known Hazard

June 29, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

After suffering injuries in a fall while working in the defendants’ home, the plaintiff in a recent personal injury case before the California Court of Appeal brought causes of action for premises liability and negligence. A lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant homeowners, but the appellate court reversed, finding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether there had been a hidden dangerous condition the owners should have disclosed, and whether the parties involved in the lawsuit acted reasonably.

The defendants in this case hired a licensed contractor to paint their home, and the plaintiff was an employee of this contractor. While moving a cabinet in an attic, on the second floor, the plaintiff stepped on a portion of the floor covered by a thin plastic sheet and fell 10 to 12 feet to the floor, suffering serious injuries. While he believed he had stepped onto the floor, it was in fact a poorly constructed and concealed skylight, built into the floor.