Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

Employer Not Vicariously Liable for Employee’s Negligence in Causing Fatal Car Crash, Due to “Going and Coming” Rule, According to California Appellate Court

March 2, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

On appeal, the California Court for the Fourth Appellate District addressed whether a temporary employee had acted within the scope of his employment when he caused a motor vehicle accident that killed one victim and seriously injured another. Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of an employee. In this case, the court examined the exceptions to the “going and coming rule,” which precludes an employer’s liability on the ground that an employee on their way to and from work is outside the course and scope of employment.

The plaintiffs, including the wife and son of the fatally injured victim in the car accident, brought a wrongful death action against a company following a car crash caused by its employee. They argued that the nature of the driver’s employment before the accident prevented the application of the “going and coming rule.” They argued that an exception to the rule applied, since the employee had a long commute to work.

Company Owes No Duty to Plaintiffs to Prevent Intoxicated Truck Driver from Loading Truck and Driving, According to California Court of Appeal

February 23, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently held, in an unpublished opinion, that a company that failed to intervene when a truck driver may have appeared drunk while loading their cargo was not liable for the resulting injuries caused by that driver. This opinion focused on the fact that since no special relationship had been alleged, the company could not be liable for its omission (failing to act). In stating that they found no duty on the part of the company, the court noted that it was a harsh rule, the rule of non-liability for nonfeasance.

After a fatal truck accident, surviving family members brought a lawsuit against the truck driver, his employer, and the onion company where the driver loaded his truck. At issue on appeal was whether the lower court had properly found that the onion company was not liable under an entrustment allegation, denying the plaintiffs’ request to amend and allege misfeasance, since the driver had appeared drunk, and the company had not refused to load the truck. In their appeal, the plaintiffs contended that they should have been able to amend their complaint.

California Court of Appeal Holds in Favor of Injured Motorcyclist Hit by Taxi Driver in West Hollywood; Taxi Company Vicariously Liable for Driver’s Acts

February 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The issue of whether a taxi driver was an agent or an employee of a defendant taxi company recently came before the California Court of Appeal. Following a motorcycle crash, the plaintiff in this case had filed a personal injury claim against the taxi driver who crashed into him and the company for which he worked. The trial court had found that the evidence did not support the jury’s finding that the driver was an agent of the taxi company, and it granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence did show agency and supported the verdict. On appeal, the court held that public regulations could be used to determine principal-agent relations, when those regulations require the taxi company to exert control.

While riding his motorcycle through West Hollywood, the plaintiff had been struck by the defendant’s taxi, coming from an opposite direction, which turned left in front of the plaintiff. The defendant driver opened his taxi and set his own hours. He had a contract with the defendant taxi company, and it stated he was an independent contractor.

Weightlifter Assumed Inherent Risk of Injury, California Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Gym

February 16, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court judgment in favor of a gym in a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged product liability, negligence, and premises liability claims. After suffering injuries while lifting weights, the plaintiff in this case sought damages against the gym. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff had a viable product liability claim and found that as a fitness service provider, the gym was not liable for his injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff’s allegations of harm were barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. In this case, the plaintiff had assumed the risk of harm inherent in lifting weights, and the gym had not increased that inherent risk.

The plaintiff in this personal injury lawsuit had been using a “hack squat” exercise machine at the gym in San Francisco. The machine strengthens quadriceps muscles as the user performs squats by raising and lowering legs and pushing the weight apparatus up and down. The machine did not have a “safety brake,” which prevents the weight apparatus from descending to the bottom of the frame if the user cannot return the weight to the starting position. While performing exercises, the plaintiff’s legs got tired, and he could not return the weight to the starting position. As the weight descended, the plaintiff was forced into a “crunched position” and suffered injuries.

California Appellate Court Imputes Knowledge of Dangerous Condition to Defendant Landlords, Overturns Judgment in their Favor

February 13, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, landlords who had moved for summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff had alleged negligence after tripping and falling down a stairway in the common area of her apartment building. The court focused on whether the trial court had properly found that the defendants lacked notice of the alleged defect, which is a required element of a plaintiff’s negligence claim. Concluding that the evidence showed a triable issue of material fact remained both on whether the stairway was a dangerous condition and whether the landlords had notice of the condition, the appellate court reversed the judgment.

The plaintiff alleged she had tripped on the metal “nose” of a stair and fallen down the stairway at the defendants’ property. In her complaint against the defendants, the plaintiff alleged that the stairways had been diligently maintained, operated, designed, and constructed. She claimed that she had not been warned about the dangerous condition.

California Court Denies Summary Judgment for Defendants When Plaintiff Shows Triable Issue of Fact Regarding Whether Train Operator was Employed by Defendants

February 9, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal reversed a judgment and remanded a case in which the defendants had been granted summary judgment on the issue of the negligent operation of a train by an employee. The defendants, two public entities, argued that the train engineer was an independent contractor and that they could not be vicariously liable for his actions.

On appeal, the court addressed whether there was a triable issue of material fact regarding the dual employment of the train operator. The appellate court also analyzed whether the plaintiff’s premises liability claim had been properly adjudicated in favor of the defendants.

California Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Car Insurer When Insured Used “Non-Owned” Employer Vehicle Regularly

February 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals recently addressed whether a van that had been provided to an employee for business use was covered by that employee’s personal automobile insurance. This issue was central to the lawsuit brought by a car accident victim injured by the employee while she was driving the van, during business hours, on a personal errand. The accident victim had recovered the statutory limit of $15,000 from the employer and then, in an arbitration involving only the driver/employee and the victim, been awarded over a half-million dollars in damages.

The driver tendered the defense of the action to her insurer, but they refused to indemnify or defend her. She assigned her rights to the victim. After the insurer refused to pay the judgment the victim had obtained, based on the arbitrator’s award, the victim filed a lawsuit against the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, and declaratory relief.

California Appeals Court Upholds Rule that Insurance Agent Owed No Duty to Advise Plaintiffs to Purchase Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance to Help Recover Costs from Son’s Accident

February 3, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals analyzed whether an auto insurance company had breached its duty of care to a husband and wife who believed they had purchased liability insurance for “everything,” including excess uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. The issue was whether such a duty exists, under California law, and whether the insurance agency had negligently failed to disclose that the plaintiff’s policy did not have UM coverage.

The plaintiffs, the parents of a teenage boy struck and injured by an underinsured motorist, had purchased a personal umbrella policy through an insurance agency (the defendant). When the plaintiffs learned that they had personal liability coverage but no excess uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage, they filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging they negligently failed to disclose that their umbrella policy did not have UM coverage.

The plaintiffs’ allegation was that by failing to obtain a UM umbrella policy, the defendants deprived them of an additional million dollars of insurance benefits for their son’s accident. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant breached its duty of care. The plaintiffs appealed.

California Appeal Court Upholds Judgment for Defendant Ambulance Services When Plaintiff Failed to Show Evidence that Alleged Delay in Transportation to Hospital Caused Resulting Injury

February 3, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Appeal Court, Fifth District, addressed the issue of causation in a personal injury action based on the alleged negligence of the ambulance crew in assessing and transporting the plaintiff to a hospital. The plaintiff had suffered a head injury while playing a high school football game, and the standby paramedic and the emergency medical technician (EMT) examined him. After the EMT completed an assessment, the plaintiff was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a right-sided subdural hematoma. He underwent surgery to relieve a brain hemorrhage, and at some point, he suffered a stroke.

The plaintiff sued Kern County Emergency Medical Transportation Corporation (the defendant) and others for injuries. He alleged that the defendant was grossly negligent, which is the standard of care that applies to paramedics and EMTs under the Health and Safety Code. The plaintiff contended that in assessing him, the defendant did not recognize that he had sustained a traumatic brain injury, requiring immediate transport to a trauma center.

California Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Golf Club Owner for Plaintiff’s Injuries from Stray Golf Ball while on Adjacent Trail

January 26, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently issued an unpublished opinion affirming the lower court’s judgment in favor of the owner and operator of a golf club after an individual walking near the club suffered injuries from a stray ball. The court assessed whether summary judgment was proper based on the tort immunity provided by the Government Code. Central to the appellate court’s decision was the holding that the trail’s location next to the golf course was an integral feature of the trail.

The owner of the club granted San Diego County public easements for unpaved trails that run along the golf course. There was a chain link fence and a line of trees separating the trail from the gold course, but there were no warning signs indicating that golf is played on the course. While the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, were walking on the trail near the 13th hole, a stray golf ball struck the husband in the eye. His injury led to a loss of 80 percent of his vision in his left eye, and he has a permanent sunken left orbital wall. The club owner stated that the fence is not a barrier but a property line. Before this incident, the club had not received reports of others being hit by stray balls on the trail near the 13th hole.

The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the club owner for negligence, unsafe condition of property, failure to warn, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and other claims. The owner moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he was entitled to trail immunity as well as recreational use immunity, both under Government Code Civil Sections 831.4 and 846. The lower court granted summary judgment in his favor, based on trail immunity.