Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court Holds Injured Man Failed to Show Health Club Maintained Shower Facilities in Extreme Departure from Standard of Care

November 7, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of a fitness center following allegations of gross negligence after an individual slipped and fell in the shower facilities. The court held there were no genuine issues of material fact, and the Release and Waiver of Liability and Indemnity was valid and a complete defense to the negligence cause of action that was alleged in the first amended complaint.

Plaintiff Kirk Anderson, in his early 60s, signed a membership agreement at L.A. Fitness, a health club in Glendale. The language of the agreement included a release and waiver of liability and indemnity. He suffered injuries at the health club when he went to shower and slipped and fell on the floor, eventually requiring surgery to repair his humerus.

California Court Holds City Not Liable for Injuries to Girl Hurt on Swingset Because Structure Met Safety Guidelines, and City Had no Notice of Previous Incidents

November 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal analyzed whether a motion for summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the City of Inglewood in a premises liability lawsuit brought on behalf of a minor injured on a playset swing. The issue before the court was whether the City had met its burden of proof on summary judgment, setting forth facts that negated the claim that a dangerous condition existed and that the City knew or should have known of its existence and failed to correct or remedy the situation.

Lilah Belser, 12 years old at the time, had been playing on a swing in a park in Inglewood. She moved to dismount, but her finger remained caught inside a link of the swing and was partially amputated. Through a guardian ad litem, Ms. Belser filed a claim for damages against the City of Inglewood, alleging the chain link openings were too big for use by minor children. She then filed a premises liability lawsuit on the ground that the size of the openings constituted a dangerous condition in violation of Government Code Section 835.

The City moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the City met its burden of showing the swing set did not constitute a dangerous condition. The court also held that the declaration of Ms. Belzer’s expert did not create a triable issue of material fact. The court entered judgment in favor of the City, finding the City did not have actual or constructive notice that the swings were in a dangerous condition, since there had not been other complaints. Ms. Belser appealed.

California Court Applies Going and Coming Rule in Lawsuit Involving Oil Rig Employee’s Vehicle

November 1, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of whether an employer can be held liable for injuries caused by an employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In this unpublished opinion, the court assessed whether the going and coming rule applied to an employee who provided two other employees a ride to their employer-paid hotel and caused a traffic accident as they were driving home from work.

The trial court in this case applied the going and coming rule after the employer moved for summary judgment and the plaintiff moved for summary adjudication. The court had focused on the facts that the employees were responsible for arranging and paying for their transportation from the employer-provided hotel to the job site, the employer had not required employees to rideshare or carpool, and the employer did not benefit, even incidentally, from the ridesharing arrangement of the employees.

The employer in this case was Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. (H&P), a company that operates oil drilling rigs, including those in Kern County. Employees work a shift, called a “hitch” for the drilling rigs, which is a 12-hour day for 14 days, followed by 14 days off. The defendant employer provides hotel arrangements, should the employees want to stay close to the drilling site. Employees are responsible for paying for their transportation to and from the hotel and the job site.

California Court Determines Substantial Evidence Supported the Jury Verdict When Driver’s Failure to Properly Observe Intersection was not Negligent as a Matter of Law

October 27, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal upheld a jury verdict finding that the defendant was not negligent in a two-car vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was injured. The appellate court looked at precedent to conclude that negligence remains a question of fact, and when the evidence demonstrates that the defendant driver showed some level of care and may have acted reasonably, even if a collision resulted, they may not be deemed negligent.

The collision occurred when defendant Joshua Nozar attempted to cross an intersection in his Range Rover to secure a parking spot and collided with plaintiff Sassa Minnegren, operating her small car. Ms. Minnegren sued Mr. Nozar for negligence.

After hearing testimony from two eyewitnesses as well as the defendant, the jury rendered a special verdict in favor of Mr. Nozar. Mr. Nozar had testified that he looked and saw Ms. Minnegren’s car approaching the intersection, but he thought he had enough time to make it through the intersection safely. The trial court entered the judgment on the special verdict, and Ms. Minnegren filed motions for a new trial and JNOV, based on the insufficiency of the evidence. Both motions were denied by the trial court. Ms. Minnegren appealed.

California Appellate Court Upholds Reasonable Value of Medical Services for Uninsured Victim of Car Accident

October 24, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal involving a personal injury plaintiff’s damages for past medical expenses. At issue was the reasonable value of medical services received by the plaintiff, who, at the time of the underlying motor vehicle accident, was uninsured. The court narrowed their decision, abiding by precedent that a plaintiff is entitled to recover from the tortfeasor the reasonable value of medical services.

In this case, defendant Richard Mercer admitted he negligently collided with plaintiff Lillie Moore’s vehicle. Ms. Moore’s health and lifestyle were negatively affected, and she had not suffered any physical limitations before the accident. At the time of the collision, Ms. Moore was uninsured.

Ms. Moore’s life changed greatly following the accident, and she eventually moved to be near additional family support. After being unable to engage with her son or participate in full-time work, Ms. Moore agreed to undergo disk replacement surgery for her back. The court noted that disk replacement surgery is difficult, and only five or six surgeons in the Sacramento area regularly conduct these procedures. Before securing medical treatment, Ms. Moore executed medical lien agreements with her health care providers. They obligated her to pay the full amount of billed fees. Her providers sold their bills and liens to Medfin, a medical finance company.

California Court Upholds Judgment Because Evidence Supported Jury’s Determination that Defendants’ Negligence Had Not Been Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiffs’ Injuries

October 20, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal affirmed a jury’s finding that the defendants in a premises liability lawsuit had not caused the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. In this case, the court found that the jury did not err in holding that the landlords had been negligent, but their conduct had not been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries. The court looked at the standard that requires a judgment to be supported by substantial evidence and found that in this case, that standard had been met.

On appeal, the court stated they view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Here, the facts indicated that Alexandra Lake and her six-year-old daughter lived in a rented apartment in Tiburon, California. The Morphews owned the property and rented out the unit, as well as three others.

In 2010, Ms. Lake’s daughter Jazea fell from the second to last step on an exterior staircase leading from the street level to the entrance to Ms. Lake’s unit. Jazea hit her head on a metal gate at the bottom landing. Neither the stairs nor the handrail were in compliance with the building code. Jazea had abrasions on her forehead, and her cheek was slightly swollen.

California Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Defendants Because Plaintiff’s Injuries From Multiple Car Accidents Had Healed, and Ongoing Medical Issues Were Unrelated to Accidents

October 17, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit following two motor vehicle collisions, an injured plaintiff appealed the jury’s award of damages. A California Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the jury award for past pain and suffering, with no future economic or noneconomic damages awarded. The court focused on the fact that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries stemming from the car accidents had likely healed, and any ongoing medical complaints were unrelated to the accident.

On February 3, 2012, Ms. Tent was traveling from Malibu to Oxnard for her work as a code enforcement officer, and her vehicle was rear-ended by one defendant in the injury lawsuit. Later, returning to Malibu, she was rear-ended again by a different defendant. Both defendants admitted their liability for the accidents.

Ms. Tent sought damages for the neck and back injuries that she claimed resulted from the collisions. She waived her claim for past medical costs, and the issue was whether she was entitled to damages for past lost earnings, future lost earnings, future medical expenses, past noneconomic loss, and future noneconomic loss.

Man Injured in Fall on Steps Outside Apartment Not Entitled to Future Damages; California Court Holds Jury’s Award was Supported by Substantial Evidence

October 13, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In this recent opinion, the California Court of Appeals addressed an appeal brought by the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit following a fall from the steps outside his apartment complex. The court reviewed the rules of law concerning damages and held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s award.

Plaintiff Kazimierz Sokol brought a lawsuit for personal injuries after suffering injuries on stairs outside his apartment. Defendant Anna K. Rosciszewski, his landlord, stipulated that she had been negligent. After a trial, the jury found Ms. Rosciszewski’s negligence was a substantial cause of Mr. Sokol’s injuries. They awarded Mr. Sokol damages of $36,474.89 for past medical expenses and $5,000 for past pain and suffering. Mr. Sokol was not awarded any damages for future losses.

Mr. Sokol appealed, contending that the damages award was inadequate as a matter of law. The court reviewed the medical bills as well as the opinions of a vocational rehabilitation counselor and a damages expert. At issue was whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

California Court Holds Injured Woman’s Legal Claim Fails Because Concrete Slabs in Patio Did Not Pose Hazard to Reasonable Person

October 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal of an underlying premises liability lawsuit, a California court affirmed a judgment in favor of the owner of a winery after the injured plaintiff alleged she fell and suffered injuries. Noting that there is no bright line rule regarding whether a condition is dangerous or defective, the court stated that an alleged defect is not trivial if it would be sufficiently dangerous to a reasonably careful person.

In this case, plaintiff Lorna Good allegedly fell at a winery and suffered injuries, fracturing her foot and wrist. The winery was owned by OGB Partners, and Ms. Good had been to the location 10 to 12 times in the previous nine months. On a warm, clear evening, while watching a concert, Ms. Good fell while wearing four-inch stiletto heels.

Ms. Good brought a lawsuit against OGB for premises liability and general negligence. OGB moved for summary judgment, submitting photographs and contending that the patio had been well-lit on the night of the alleged accident. The trial court heard arguments on the summary judgment motions and ultimately granted the motion in favor of OGB. The court stated that summary judgment is to be granted when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants moving for summary judgment must show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment and Punitive Damages Award in Favor of Man Assaulted and Injured in Venice Restaurant

October 6, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In this recent opinion, a California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of an injured individual who brought a lawsuit against a man who allegedly attacked him at a restaurant in Venice, California. The injured plaintiff also sued the restaurant, the security guard, and the company for which he worked. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the battery and negligence causes of action, and the judge assessed punitive damages against the defendant who was the alleged aggressor. On appeal, the defendant contended that the judgment should be reversed, due to insufficient evidence supporting both the verdict and the punitive damages.

After being attacked inside the Venice restaurant by defendant Donald Hartunian, Dale Johnson contended that he suffered injuries to his knee, including a torn ACL. Since there were several different defendants in this case, after the issue of punitive damages was bifurcated for trial, the matter went to the jury on the theories of: (1) premises liability and negligence of the bar; (2) negligence of the security company; (3) negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the security guard; and (4) negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the alleged aggressor, defendant Donald Hartunian.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the bar, the security company, and the security guard on all the causes of action, but it found against Mr. Hartunian on the battery and negligence causes of action. They apportioned 85 percent of the fault for Mr. Johnson’s damages to Mr. Hartunian and 15 percent to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson was awarded $96,000 in damages.