Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Firefighters After Plaintiff Suffered Severe Injuries at Fire Base Camp

June 26, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

After suffering injuries when a water truck ran over her at a fire base camp, a plaintiff in a recent case before the California Court of Appeal brought a lawsuit against the Fire District and their employees. She alleged that her damages were caused by their negligence, a dangerous condition of public property, and their failure to warn. The lower court had held that the defendants were immune from liability, according to the firefighter’s rule, and on appeal, the court analyzed whether the defendants had waived their claim to immunity.

A fire broke out in the Plumas National Forest in September 2009, and a base camp was set up at Plumas County Fairgrounds. The plaintiff worked as a Forest Service firefighter and slept in an area that had not been properly roped off and marked “no vehicles allowed.” In the evening, a water truck servicing a nearby shower unit ran over the plaintiff, who was sleeping on the ground, and severely damaged her heart, lungs, and eyes.

California Court Reverses Judgment in Favor of Insurer Following Car Accident: Reasonable Jury Could Find Insurer Acted Unreasonably in Denying Plaintiff’s Demand for Damages

June 22, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

After suffering injuries in a car accident, the plaintiff in a recent case before the Superior Court of Orange County argued that her insurance company breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. While the court had found that the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment, based on the legal doctrine of “genuine dispute,” the plaintiff appealed. The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that there were triable issues regarding whether the insurance company’s decision that the plaintiff did not need steroid injections was made without conducting a good faith investigation and without a reasonable basis for a genuine dispute.

The case followed a vehicle collision in which another driver ran a red light and struck the plaintiff’s car. The other driver had caused the accident, and the plaintiff reported the accident to her insurance company the next day. She also immediately reported chest pain in a police report at the scene of the accident. She was transported by ambulance to the hospital, where she complained of pain in her face and arm.

The plaintiff then sought medical treatment from a chiropractor, first stating she had back pain. Later, she saw an osteopath, who recommended she receive a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test for her spine. The MRI was noted to indicate significant disc protrusion, requiring more therapy, medications, and injections.

Fatal Pedestrian Accident in Santa Ana Highlights Safety Issues with Particular Intersection

June 19, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Pedestrian accidents and fatalities are unfortunately a common occurrence on California roads. Aggressive or careless drivers who speed near intersections or otherwise violate a statute put others at risk of severe harm. Victims hurt in a pedestrian accident can file a civil lawsuit to pursue damages from the at-fault driver. By proving the other driver failed to meet their duty of care and did not drive reasonably under the circumstances, a victim may present a strong claim for compensation.

According to the California Vehicle Code, pedestrians are entitled to safe travel and access to roads. Drivers are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians who are crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk. Motorists are also required to yield when pulling out of a parking lot or a driveway. However, the law also states that pedestrians must use due care for their safety, and they cannot unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in the crosswalk. In a legal claim for damages, a pedestrian deemed to have contributed to their injuries may find their recovery reduced by their percentage of fault.

California Court Holds in Favor of Injured Plaintiffs, “Trail Immunity” Does Not Extend to Public Golf Course that Causes Injuries to Pedestrians Nearby

June 15, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal reversed a decision in favor of a golf course owned by the City of Pasadena in a lawsuit brought by a baby and his mother after the baby was injured while on a trail adjacent to the golf course. The issue before the appellate court was whether the City was entitled to trail immunity. The baby had been struck in the head by a golf ball while being pushed by his mother in a stroller. He was rushed to the hospital and diagnosed with a brain injury.

The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit on the legal theory of a dangerous condition of public property posed by the golf course. At issue was whether the City had established that design immunity entitled it to summary judgment. The court stated that a dangerous condition of public property creates a substantial (as opposed to a minor) risk of injury when the property has been used with due care, in a manner that is foreseeable for its use.

Public entities are liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of property when the plaintiff shows that the property was dangerous at the time of the injury, the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that resulted, and either an employee’s negligence created the condition or the public entity had notice of the condition.

Defendant Entitled to Defense as Contractor to U.S. Government, Plaintiff Not Entitled to Recovery for Injuries Suffered from Exposure to Chemicals in California

June 12, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether the lower court had properly ruled in favor of the defendant, a company that shipped chemicals to the government that allegedly caused the plaintiff injuries while he was working for the government.

The plaintiff alleged he was harmed while working as a machinist for a company that contracted with the United States Navy to supply insulation for stainless steel piping. He brought a lawsuit for general negligence and strict liability manufacturing and design defect claims, including claims for failing to warn of the hazards of the chemical use. First, the court analyzed whether the defendant was a government contractor, entitled to the defense that shields military contractors from state tort law liability when there is a defect in military equipment that has been supplied to the United States.

California Appellate Court Upholds Jury Verdict that Dangerous Condition Had Not Caused Plaintiff’s Single-Vehicle Accident

June 8, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed a plaintiff’s allegations of error concerning the trial court’s exclusion of evidence in her single-vehicle personal injury lawsuit. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff had met the elements of showing that a dangerous condition of public property existed on the road. They also made clear that the standard on review was whether there was a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a result more favorable to the plaintiff, had there been no error.

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the State of California for severe and permanent injuries she suffered in an accident on State Route 127 in July 2012. She contended that a puddle on the road caused her vehicle to veer and roll over. On behalf of the state, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prevailed in a jury trial, when the jury found no dangerous condition existed.

In her appeal, the plaintiff contended that it had been a prejudicial error to exclude testimony from her biomechanical expert and a witness to the accident. Regarding the biomechanical expert, whom the plaintiff had designated to testify regarding how her injuries occurred during the car accident, Caltrans had contended that the expert was not qualified to offer opinions on the topic of accident reconstruction and traffic engineering. The expert was going to testify regarding the number of rollovers that took place in the accident.

California Court Holds Employer Has Duty of Care to Protect Wife of Employee from “Take Home Exposure” to Asbestos

June 5, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently found in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that she had developed mesothelioma due to her husband’s exposure to asbestos fibers at work. The significance of this opinion is that it relies upon new case law set forth by the state Supreme Court. In light of the new law, the appellate court expanded the duty of care outside the employer-employee realm, holding that the employer may have owed a duty of care to the wife of the deceased employee.

In reviewing recent caselaw concerning the duty of care owed to family members, the court stated that we all have a duty to use due care, avoiding injuring others. Turning to the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland) factors, the court had previously held that premises owners do not need to protect family members from harm caused by contact with family members wearing asbestos-contaminated work clothes home. However, Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Kesner) was recently decided, and the California Court of Appeal stated that based on that decision, the employer in this case owed the plaintiff a duty.

California Court Upholds Decision Car Insurer Not Liable for Negligence Per Se, Plaintiff Prevented From Claiming Car Not Total Loss After Accident

May 25, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiffs took inconsistent positions regarding the damage to their vehicle. In a recent decision, the California appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of the insurance company. Not only did the court find that evidence had been properly excluded regarding whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was a total loss, but also the court upheld the finding that the insurer was not liable on the claim of negligence per se.

The defendant in this case had been insured, and the company took responsibility for damage to the plaintiffs’ car after a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiffs had repaired their vehicle, but the insurer notified the DMV that it had been a total loss salvage vehicle. This notification took place before reaching a settlement with the plaintiffs.

After the notification, the plaintiffs were unable to register their car and temporarily lost use of it until Mercury informed the DMV of the error. One of the plaintiffs then suffered a heart attack, allegedly from the stress of this dispute with the insurer and the effect of the DMV notification.

California Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Contention City was Liable for Dangerous Condition at Intersection Following Pedestrian Accident

May 22, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before a California appellate court, the issue on appeal was whether there remained triable issues of material fact concerning whether an intersection where an accident took place constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Dangerous conditions of property exist when property is defective or damaged in a way that foreseeably endangers those using the property. In analyzing whether the trial court properly granted judgment in favor of the city, the appellate court focused on whether the plaintiffs met their burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.

The lawsuit centered on a motor vehicle collision in which the defendant driver lost control of his car and hit the plaintiff, a pedestrian, injuring him. The plaintiff and his family members brought a complaint against the driver and the City of San Jose. On appeal, the claims against the City remained at issue, including allegations of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, dangerous condition of public property, and loss of consortium.

According to the plaintiffs, the intersection was an unreasonably dangerous condition of public property and caused the accident and the resulting injuries. They alleged that the intersection did not have proper signage, despite previous accidents caused by lack of visibility and lack of proper controls. The plaintiffs claimed that the City had been on notice of these issues.

California Court of Appeal Holds Parties Had Not Reached a Settlement in Personal Injury Lawsuit Following Car Crash, and Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed

May 18, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

At issue before the California Court of Appeal recently was whether there had been a settlement in a personal injury lawsuit, and if there had, whether the plaintiff showed good cause to prevent the dismissal of the case. The appellate court held the parties had not reached a settlement, and any unresolved dispute concerning the insurance policy was good cause to prevent dismissal. The court reversed the judgment, requiring the lower court to place the case on the civil active list.

The plaintiff in this case brought an action for injuries he suffered in a car accident with the defendants. After attending private mediation, the parties returned to court for a status conference. However, the court was advised there had been an issue concerning the insurance policy. The plaintiff’s counsel made clear that she wanted to file an underinsured motorist claim against the plaintiff’s insurance carrier. She understood that before making that claim, she needed to obtain the plaintiff’s insurance company’s permission to settle with the defendants. The matter was continued on the calendar, and potential insurance coverage issues remained, thwarting resolution.

At a hearing, the judge ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to appear, since a special appearance had been made on behalf of the plaintiff, requesting a jury trial. At the next hearing, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the same issue was addressed at a prior hearing and that the plaintiff’s counsel had been ordered to appear but failed to do so.