Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Appellate Court Holds No Liability for Contractor in Slip and Fall Lawsuit, Due to “Accepted Work” Doctrine

July 19, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a premises liability case, the California Court of Appeal recently reviewed whether a contractor that performed tile work for a property management company could be held liable for injuries suffered by an individual who slipped on the wet tiles. After slipping and falling, the plaintiff in this case brought a lawsuit against the property manager, which then filed a cross-complaint against the contractor. The trial court denied the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, but after review, the appellate court vacated the order and directed the lower court to issue a new order granting the motion for summary judgment based on the “accepted work” doctrine.

Connie Rogers was the plaintiff in a slip and fall case involving PMB, a Limited Liability Company and property manager, and Topline Supply, Inc. Topline had contracted with PMB to provide renovation services, including installing tiles on a handicapped access ramp. Topline was not named as a defendant, but PMB filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and added Topline. Then, Topline made a summary judgment motion based on the “accepted work” doctrine.

The trial court denied the summary judgment motion on the ground that the “accepted work” doctrine did not absolve a contractor from liability if they had been hired by a third party.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Holding in Favor of City Because Minor Defect in Sidewalk was Trivial

July 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a judgment in favor of the City of Berkeley and a company that owns a market, the California Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion in a trip and fall lawsuit. The issue before the court was whether the defect in the sidewalk, a three-quarter of an inch offset, constituted a trivial defect. Generally, property owners are not liable for injuries caused by trivial defects that would not injure a person using the sidewalk with ordinary care.

Plaintiff Helena Tiainen-Bennett tripped and fell at around 5:00 p.m. in April 2010 while walking on a sidewalk abutting the parking lot of a market owned by defendant KRGW Fujimoto LLC (KRGW). It was dry on the surface area near the accident site, and the plaintiff alleged that her fall took place when her right foot hit an offset sidewalk slab. She fractured her knee and elbow and required surgery for both.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants and alleged a cause of action against KRGW for negligent management of the property next to the sidewalk. The plaintiff contended the City maintained a dangerous condition of public property.

California Court of Appeal Opinion Holds Wooden Walkway in Santa Monica Constitutes “Trail,” Providing the City with Immunity from Liability

July 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of whether the City of Santa Monica was liable for injuries sustained by a woman walking near the Santa Monica Pier. In this lawsuit, the City contended it was immune from liability under the Government Code section providing that public entities are not liable for injuries caused by trails used for recreational purposes. The issue in this case was whether the wooden walkway constituted a trail as defined by the Code.

In 2012, on an evening in June, Alla Afremova was strolling north on the Santa Monica beach with her family. They noticed a wooden walkway to the east and decided to take this walkway to the paved area en route to the Santa Monica Pier and the Ferris wheel. Ms. Afremova fell while walking on the raised plank and sustained injuries. She then filed a complaint against the City of Santa Monica for premises liability and personal injury.

The City moved for summary judgment on the ground that Ms. Afremova’s motion was barred by trail immunity and design immunity, set forth by the Government Code sections 831.4 and 830.6. Regarding trail immunity, the City contended that the wooden walkway is used for walking and viewing the Pacific Ocean, as well as beach access.

California Court of Appeal Finds Plaintiffs Failed to Show Unsafe Condition and Landlord Duty Regarding Water Heater Temperature Responsible for Burns

July 8, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, a California Court of Appeal analyzed whether a lower court properly dismissed a plaintiff’s allegations of negligence concerning a landlord’s failure to discover the high temperature of the water heater and reduce that temperature. The plaintiffs claimed that their expert testimony had been limited, resulting in prejudice, and that the trial court failed to provide a jury instruction on the duty owed by a property owner to inspect and repair.

Susana Petikyan was scalded by the hot water in the shower of her mother’s rented apartment, owned by Elk St. Properties. At the time of the incident, Susana stepped into the shower and turned on just the hot water, and it scalded her within 15 seconds. The apartment was part of a 13-apartment complex and had a single water heater. It was unclear what the temperature of the water was at the time it scalded Susana. One expert opined it may have been between 130 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit, while another measured the water at 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

California Court Holds Employee’s Negligence Claim Against Employer Barred by Workers’ Compensation Act

July 5, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the California Workers’ Compensation Act barred a negligence claim brought by an injured employee against his employer for negligence. In this opinion, the appellate court looked at whether the claim arose out of and in the course of employment, and it stated that the degree of negligence on behalf of the employer did not affect a determination of whether the exclusivity provision applied.

Paul Friend worked as a tow truck driver for GBWY and alleged that he suffered injuries at work when a metal folding chair he was sitting on collapsed underneath him. Mr. Friend claimed that the negligence of defendants William Kang and GBWY Investment Group caused his injury. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that workers’ compensation was Mr. Friend’s exclusive remedy. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim.

Mr. Friend appealed on the ground that summary judgment was improper because there was a factual dispute as to whether the defendants were in fact Mr. Friend’s employer, and whether Mr. Kang owned the chair that caused his injury. When the defendants moved for summary judgment, they had the burden of proving that one or more elements of negligence could not be established, or there was a complete defense to the negligence claim. The burden then shifted to Mr. Friend to show a triable issue of fact regarding the negligence claim.

California Court of Appeals Rejects Sanctions Against Defendant in Personal Injury Lawsuit Because Second Summary Judgment Motion was not “Objectively Unreasonable”

June 27, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of monetary sanctions in a personal injury lawsuit involving allegations of negligence against multiple defendants.. One defendant moved for summary judgment, and after the plaintiff amended his complaint, the defendant moved again for summary judgment. The lower court found the motions duplicative and awarded sanctions to the plaintiff. But on appeal, the court found that the filing was not objectively unreasonable and reversed the award of sanctions.

Adam Martinez sued Southern California Edison and other “Doe” defendants on the grounds that their negligence contributed to his injuries when a metal pole on a ladder contacted Edison’s power lines. Later, Mr. Martinez named Edison’s vegetation-maintenance contractor, Asplundh Tree Expert Company, as Doe 1. Asplundh denied liability and moved for summary judgment.

Mr. Martinez amended his complaint but failed to name Asplundh. Asplundh contended it did not owe a duty of care to keep the public or Mr. Martinez safe from power lines, and his injuries were caused by his own negligence when he placed a 19-foot metal tent pole in contact with a power line. The trial court denied Asplundh’s summary judgment motion, finding there were triable material issues of fact regarding the extent of Asplundh’s responsibility.

California Court Holds Primary Assumption of Risk Bars Negligence Claim in Recreational Swimming Pool Accident Lawsuit Because Swimming Presents Inherent Risk of Drowning and Injury

June 23, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a community college after a recreational swimming student brought a lawsuit against the college for negligence related to an incident that occurred when he was swimming recreationally at the college pool. In this opinion, the appellate court found that the facts as presented to the trial court supported a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff assumed the risk of drowning when he chose to swim recreationally, and the swim coach and the lifeguard were not liable.

Mr. Lee alleged that the District, the swim coach, and the lifeguard were negligent by failing to properly supervisor or monitor Mr. Lee’s swim class, when he nearly drowned. Asserting the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the defendants contended that Mr. Lee’s cause of action for negligence could not stand.

Mr. Lee was 19 years old when the incident occurred, and when he enrolled in swim instruction he did not know how to swim. During class, the coach instructed students in how to swim and float through breathing techniques employed during freestyle swimming. At the time of the incident, Mr. Lee was allowed to lap swim and enter the deep end of the pool.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Town When Plaintiffs Failed to Create Triable Issue of Fact Regarding Dangerous Condition of Property

June 20, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a judgment in favor of the Town of Moraga in a premises liability case. In this opinion, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ claims that the Town had maintained a dangerous condition of public property related to a barricade near a street parade for the Fourth of July. Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations and affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment.

On appeal, the court stated that Government Claims Act, Section 835, sets forth conditions that may hold a public entity liable for injuries. Public entities can be liable if the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, the injury was caused by the condition, and the kind of injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the dangerous condition. Public property is in a dangerous condition according to the Act when it is physically damaged, deteriorated, or defective in a way that endangers those using the property.

On July 4, 2010, plaintiffs Kathleen and Benjamin Bjornstad left their home in the Town of Moraga, California, to watch fireworks at a display. Stephen Holbrook drove his mobility scooter while the others walked, since Stephen has been unable to walk since the mid-1990s. They took the same route they had traveled for more than 10 years on their way to the fireworks display.

California Court of Appeal Holds that Maintaining Overflow Parking Lot Across Street From Church and Directing Invitees to Park in Lot Exposed Church Invitees to Risk of Harm Crossing Street

June 16, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether a church exposed invitees to an unreasonable risk of injury when it located an overflow parking lot across a busy street without a marked crosswalk or traffic signal. In this case, the court reviewed the order granting summary judgment in favor of the church on the ground that it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances. The court of appeals reversed the judgment in favor of the church, determining that the particular facts of this case, including the manner in which the church directed invitees to use the overflow lot, which they controlled, failed to show that it met its burden of showing a duty of care did not apply.

Grace Family Church (GFC) is located in Sacramento, on Marconi Avenue across from the Debbie Meyer Swim School. A five-lane road separates GFC from the school, and there is no marked crosswalk or traffic signal at the intersection of Marconi and Root Avenue, the nearest cross street. GFC had an agreement with the swim school to use the lot for overflow parking for church events.

On November 19, 2010, Aleksandr Vasilenko attended an event at GFC and was instructed by an attendant at the church to park across the street. Two attendants were on duty in the parking lot, and neither instructed drivers on where to park or how to cross Marconi Avenue.

California Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of City When Plaintiff Failed to Show Knowledge of Dangerous Condition of Sidewalk

June 13, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A California Court of Appeal recently addressed a lawsuit involving allegations of a dangerous condition on public property. At issue in this opinion was whether the defendant, the City of Burbank, had notice of the alleged dangerous condition – an uneven sidewalk. The court reviewed the allegations under the Government Claims Act, which governs potential liability for public entities.

In the afternoon of September 7, 2011, Sarah Moore was walking in the City of Burbank, near her apartment, when she tripped and fell on a raised edge of the sidewalk. The concrete portion of the sidewalk had been uplifted about two inches by tree roots. Ms. Moore had moved to the area only a week earlier and could not recall if she had noticed the uneven sidewalk. She fell on her left hand and both knees, breaking the bones in her left wrist and requiring surgery and therapy.

Months later, Ms. Moore submitted a claim to the City for more than $3 million for her injuries resulting from the incident. A City supervisor inspected the sidewalk and subsequently replaced it. Ms. Moore then filed a complaint alleging negligence, claiming the City knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk, created the condition, and caused her injuries.