Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court Holds Plaintiff Failed to Present More Than Speculative Evidence Showing Movie Theater’s Negligence Following Fall

December 19, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal issued an unpublished opinion in a premises liability and negligence lawsuit brought by an individual who suffered a serious fall in an AMC movie theater bathroom. The appellate court, on review, assessed whether the plaintiff’s evidence showed conduct constituting negligence, based on premises liability. After assessing the facts and testimony, the court held that the plaintiff had merely shown conjecture or speculation, and this would not be sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find the defendants knew of a dangerous condition on their premises.

The facts of this case indicated that the plaintiff had been found on the restroom floor, next to a urinal that had occasionally malfunctioned by overflowing. There were no substances found on the floor aside from the plaintiff’s blood.

Jury Could Reasonably Find that Employee’s Psychological Injuries Resulted from Employer’s Decision to Stage Mock Robbery and Were Outside the Realm of the California Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Rule

December 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal addressed whether workers’ compensation served as the exclusive remedy for an employee psychologically harmed by her participation in a staged mock robbery. She was not aware it had been a training exercise. On appeal, the issue was whether the jury had properly been given instructions about the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.

The plaintiff employee of West Kern Water District worked as a cashier at the district’s office. While employees received some training on how to respond to a robbery, supervisors decided to test the response of employees to a staged robbery. As part of the mock robbery, one of the district managers entered the office in a mask and demanded money from the employee, saying he had a gun. The employee victim had not been notified of the mock robbery, and she handed over money. She underwent treatment for psychiatric harm. She brought a claim for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded her $360,000.

The trial court denied defendant West Kern Water District’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but it granted their motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury had received an inappropriate instruction on the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. The employee and the defendants appealed.

California Court of Appeal Holds Plaintiff Failed to Show California Restaurant Owner Had a Duty to Take Preventative Measures to Protect Against Third-Party Harm to Plaintiff

December 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed whether the owner of a restaurant owed a duty to protect against harm caused by removing a snow grate. In this opinion, the court emphasized the balancing test of the foreseeability of harm against the burden imposed on a proprietor to protect against potential harm. In this case, the lower court had held the owner had no duty to take additional preventative measures, since third parties had not formerly removed the grate. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the restaurant, holding that the plaintiff had not shown the removal of the grate was reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, there was no triable issue regarding the owner’s duty to undertake preventative measures.

After falling through a snow grate that had been removed near the entrance and exit to a restaurant, the plaintiff in this case brought causes of action against the restaurant owner for negligence and premises liability. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged the owner breached its duty to avoid harm to patrons. The complaint also alleged that it was reasonably foreseeable that third parties would engage in pranks, vandalism, or malicious conduct, unless the premises were secured, since the premises had a history of such misconduct.

The facts indicated that individuals congregated near the public door on the deck, removed the snow grate, and exposed the opening in the deck. This opening is where the plaintiff fell when he stepped out of the door, about nine seconds after the grate was removed. Security guards were on duty that evening, but they did not see the fall take place.

California Court Upholds Damages Verdict in Favor of Plaintiffs Injured in Truck Accident Because Evidence Overcame any Potential Prejudice from Juror Misconduct

December 8, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

An appeal involving allegations of juror misconduct came before the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. In an unpublished opinion, the court focused on the presumption of prejudice upon a showing of juror misconduct and the fact it can be overcome by evidence. The court stated that juror misconduct is one ground for granting a new trial, and a three-step process is required to assess whether a new trial is appropriate. First, the court determines whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible. Next, the court assesses whether the facts establish juror misconduct. Finally, if there was misconduct, the trial court must determine whether prejudice resulted from the misconduct.

In the underlying incident, the plaintiff suffered injuries in a truck collision when the defendant’s semi-truck rear-ended the plaintiff’s semi-truck. Liability was not disputed, but the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries were at issue. After a jury trial, a verdict awarded the plaintiff $241,473 in damages. The defendant argued that there was juror misconduct and that as a result he had been denied a fair trial. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages award.

California Supreme Court Holds that Employers or Property Owners Have Duty to Prevent Foreseeable Harm of Asbestos Exposure to Members of a Worker’s Household

December 5, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Domestic exposure to asbestos takes place when workers come into contact with a toxin and carry it home on their clothing, resulting in a person or a family member suffering exposure due to their proximity with the worker (or their clothing). Two lawsuits involving personal injury and wrongful death actions were consolidated by the California Supreme Court in an opinion that addressed whether the decedents’ employers had a duty to family members and those who share their household to prevent their exposure to asbestos.

The trial and appellate courts had evaluated whether there was a duty to prevent the exposure of asbestos to non-employees who had not visited the employers’ facilities, reaching different conclusions. Mesothelioma is associated with asbestos exposure and is a form of chest and abdomen cancer. The plaintiffs contended there had been a risk of harm created through the use of asbestos-containing products, and household members were exposed to this harm. The Supreme Court ultimately granted review and consolidated the cases to determine whether an employer has a duty to prevent take-home asbestos exposure to an employee’s household members under a negligence or premises liability theory.

California Court of Appeal Annuls Writ of Review Because Workers’ Compensation Orders and Decisions Must be Final before Seeking Writ

November 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an appeal involving procedural issues central to the claims of injured workers, a California Court of Appeal addressed whether there had been a final order and whether an employer could seek review of a denial of a petition to remove and reconsider. The court reiterated that writs of review may only be sought from final orders or decisions of the appeals board.

The injured employee in this case alleged that he suffered an industrial injury and filed a workers’ compensation claim. After a medical report was circulated, his employer, Capital Builders Hardware, Inc., argued the report was inadmissible and requested that it be stricken. The workers’ compensation judge denied Capital’s motions, and Capital appealed the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The board dismissed and denied the petition for removal and the petition for reconsideration.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Ralphs Market When Plaintiff Who Slipped and Fell Showed Only Trivial Defect

November 21, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent unpublished opinion regarding an underlying premises liability lawsuit, the California Court of Appeal upheld a judgment in favor of a Southern California supermarket chain after the plaintiff alleged a defective floor caused her to slip and fall and suffer injuries. The court reviewed the evidence presented before the trial court, relying on the rule of law that states that property owners are not responsible for defects that are deemed “trivial” as a matter of law. In this lawsuit, the plaintiff had not shown the defect to be material, and her opposition to the defendant supermarket’s motion for summary judgment did not create a triable issue of material fact.

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Hughes Markets, Inc. dba Ralphs. She alleged premises liability and negligence. Ralphs moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed.

The facts indicated that while the plaintiff was exiting a Ralphs Store in Sherman Oaks, she slipped and fell. She filed this complaint and contended that the floor was uneven and defective. In their summary judgment motion, Ralphs argued the floor defect was trivial as a matter of law. They supported their motion with a declaration of the former store manager, who had inspected and measured the floor. The plaintiff relied on a declaration by a civil engineer in support of her opposition to summary judgment. Ralphs alleged that they could not be found liable because there was no condition that created a substantial risk of injury. They argued that the floor defect was trivial.

California Court Holds Injured Employee Did Not Show Defendant Affirmatively Contributed to Injuries

November 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, recently addressed the issue of whether an exception applied to the general rule that an independent contractor cannot recover tort damages for work-related injuries from their hirer. In this case, the court found that the employee had not presented evidence that his hirer contributed to his injuries. The court found there were no triable issues of material fact regarding his theory that the retained control exception or nondelegable duty exception applied.

Al Khosh worked for Myers Power Products, Inc., a subcontractor for an electrical project at California State University Channel Islands. Mr. Khosh was injured during the course of his employment and sued the general contractor, Staples Construction, for negligence.

Appellate Court Upholds Ratio of 10:1 Punitive to Compensatory Damages in California Lawsuit Alleging Fraud and Reprehensible Conduct by Life Insurance Company Following Plaintiff’s Accident

November 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the Second Appellate District, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether an award of punitive damages comported with due process following a life insurance company’s alleged fraud and intentional conduct toward a disabled veteran. At issue was whether the punitive damages award must be limited to no more than 10 times the compensatory damages award. The appellate court looked at the factors that determine an award of punitive damages, upholding a constitutional limit of 10:1 for punitive to compensatory damages awards.

Mr. Nickerson served in the United States Marines and was entitled to care at the Veterans Administration hospitals, with expenses paid. In 1997, Mr. Nickerson was involved in a snowmobile accident and as a result was paralyzed from the chest down. At the time of the incident, he relied on a wheelchair and was single, working as a live-in caretaker for other veterans. In exchange, he received free rent. He had a very small military pension.

While sitting in a motorized wheelchair, on a lift, waiting to be lowered from his van, Mr. Nickerson accidentally hit the control and lurched forward. He fell to the pavement, breaking his leg. He was taken to a VA Hospital in Long Beach and treated by Dr. Hung Nguyen. Mr. Nickerson remained at the hospital for 109 days.

California Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Regents of California Because Trial Court did not Improperly Instruct Jury Concerning the Kind of Injury That Plaintiff Suffered

November 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal recently held in favor of the Regents of the University of California in an underlying personal injury lawsuit brought by a student who was seriously injured while riding his bike across campus. At issue in this appeal was whether the trial court had properly responded to a jury question concerning a definition central to the legal claim in this case. The appellate court rejected this claim of instructional error proposed by the student, stating that the language used by the trial court clarified and was based on the actual language of Government Code Section 835, the basis of the plaintiff’s legal claim.

Geoffrey Chen, a student at University of California, Irvine (“UCI”), was biking across campus when he rode across a grassy slope next to a bicycle pathway. He had used the shortcut before, without issue, and seen others using it as well.

On that particular day, Mr. Chen’s bicycle rode over a retaining wall that had been obscured by vegetation. After being thrown from his bicycle, Mr. Chen landed on his head on a drain cover that sat at a catch basin below the retaining wall. Due to the fall, Mr. Chen suffered an injury to his spinal cord and remains paralyzed from the chest down.