Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court of Appeal Finds in Favor of Plaintiff in Car Accident Lawsuit When Evidence Fails to Show Plaintiff’s Consent to Settlement Agreement

June 9, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a California Court of Appeal addressed whether a settlement agreement between an injured victim of a car accident and the responsible party’s insurer was valid. The injured plaintiff in this lawsuit suffered a traumatic brain injury, and she claimed that she did not consent to the settlement agreement entered into by her attorney. On appeal in this opinion, the court reviewed principles of contract law and settlement agreements, ultimately deciding that the plaintiff in this case had not in fact authorized the attorney to enter the settlement on her behalf.

Maria Carachure suffered severe injuries when she was struck by a vehicle while standing on the side of a road. The vehicle was driven by defendant Celia Acosta Scott. Ms. Carachure suffered brain, body, nervous system, and other injuries. Ms. Carachure’s close relatives, including her son and grandchildren, witnessed the accident and suffered emotional distress from witnessing the accident.

California Court of Appeal Finds Riding a Skateboard Downhill for Thrills Prevents Recovery for Injuries and Fatality Resulting from Fall

June 6, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently reviewed whether a summary judgment in favor of certain defendants was appropriate due to a plaintiff’s primary assumption of risk. The court in this case examined whether the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff’s son, who had been skateboarding downhill for fun when he was fatally injured.

Richard Bertsch was in Mammoth Lakes with his two sons, Brett and Mitchell, when a tragic accident took place. Brett and Mitchell were skateboarding, without helmets, and traveling downhill at a speed that Mitchell called “pretty fast.” They had climbed up a hill for the purpose of then cruising downhill on their boards. While traveling downhill on the wrong side of the street, the front wheels of Brett’s skateboard stopped when they hit a gap in the road, ejecting Brett from the board. Brett’s head struck the pavement as he hit the ground, causing a traumatic brain injury and resulting in his death.

California Appellate Court Holds Jury Instructions on Comparative Negligence Not Erroneous Because Verdict Would Remain Unchanged

June 2, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeal addressed a case involving medical malpractice and the plaintiff’s allegations that she was prejudiced by the trial court’s instruction on comparative negligence. The appellate court stated that the test for reversing a judgment on appeal is whether the error caused a miscarriage of justice. Here, the court looked at the jury’s unanimous decision concerning the defendant’s alleged negligence, and it affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Debra Groves filed a lawsuit against Hakob G. Davtyan, M.D. and other defendants, alleging negligence and other causes of action stemming from her February 16, 2010 surgery and subsequent care. The defendants other than Dr. Davtyan settled or were dismissed from the case.

At trial, the jury was instructed on Ms. Groves’ claim against Dr. Davtyan for medical negligence, The court also instructed the jury about a modified version of comparative negligence and apportionment of responsibility. They were informed certain individuals were no longer parties to the case and then asked, in another instruction, to apportion responsibility if people other than Dr. Davtyan were also negligent. In returning their special verdict in favor of Dr. Davtyan, the jury answered that Dr. Davtyan was not negligent in his care and treatment of Ms. Groves. They were instructed not to answer Question 3 (comparative negligence), since they answered “no” to Question No. 2.

California Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurers When Underlying Intentional Harm is Excluded by Insurance Coverage

May 26, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether an insurance company had a duty to defend their insured in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. Many liability policies have clauses that exclude insurance coverage for harm that is not caused in an “accident.” In other words, insurers limit liability for intentional harm. The court in this case analyzed whether the policies provided coverage for injuries suffered by a plaintiff who alleged his harm resulted from both intentional and negligent conduct.Plaintiff Christopher Miazga was injured by Giancarlo Romano, the insured of a policy issued by Mid Century Insurance Company and Fire Insurance Exchange. While Mr. Miazga was inside the home of Johnny Sebetic and his estranged wife, being intimate, both Mr. Sebetic and Mr. Romano walked in on them.

California Court of Appeal Finds Viable Theories of Liability in Lawsuit Involving Unsupervised Student Injury and Reverses Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of School District

May 23, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case involving claims of negligence and negligent supervision, the California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s finding that a student assumed the risk of injury by break dancing in a classroom. The teacher in this case had violated school policy by leaving students unsupervised in his classroom. At issue on appeal was whether there were viable theories of liability, since the school did in fact owe a duty to the injured student, and he had not assumed the risk of injury inherent in the activity.

Plaintiff Uriel Jiminez was a 14-year-old student at a middle school within Roseville City School District (“School”). He was injured while break dancing in an unsupervised room. The teacher had not thought it necessary to inform the school he had opened his class for early morning activity, and he did not think it necessary to supervise the children at all times.

California Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Injury Lawsuit Because Plaintiff’s Failure to Cooperate with Discovery Was Not Shown to be Willful

May 19, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion by a California Court of Appeal, the issue was whether the lower court properly dismissed a plaintiff’s claims when the plaintiff did not fully cooperate with discovery requests in litigation proceedings. The court stated that terminating sanctions and dismissal are appropriate in certain circumstances, but dismissal is a last resort. In the case at hand, the court also considered the fact that dismissal left the defendant in a better position than he would have been in had the plaintiff responded to the discovery in a manner favorable to the defendant.

Plaintiff James Patton brought a lawsuit against Donald Martins, based on an incident that took place on April 16, 2011 when Mr. Patton was working as a security guard for a gated community. Mr. Patton alleged that Mr. Martins, an electrical contractor, arrived at the community in his work truck and drove the wrong way through the gate. After Mr. Patton instructed Mr. Martins to turn around and reenter, an argument ensued, and Mr. Martins opened the driver’s side door to his truck violently, knocking Mr. Patton to the ground. Mr. Patton suffered injuries, and witnesses said that Mr. Martins then drove away in his truck, running over Mr. Patton’s left leg as he did so.

Mr. Martins was arrested, and Mr. Patton filed a complaint alleging he suffered injuries, including psychiatric injuries, as a result of being pushed to the ground and run over by Mr. Martins’ truck. Mr. Martins’ counsel made a demand for two separate psychiatric independent medical examinations (IMEs). Mr. Patton did not appear for either scheduled exam. Then, Mr. Patton’s counsel moved to withdraw.

California Supreme Court Reviews Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Case

May 16, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed the statute of limitations for a personal injury action alleging professional negligence against health care providers. Unlike most personal injury actions, which must be filed within two years of the date of the underlying act or omission, professional negligence actions must be brought within three years after the date of the injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers the injury, whichever is first. In the case before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether the special limitations governed the plaintiff’s claims against a hospital. On March 5, 2009, plaintiff Catherine Flores, a patient at Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (PIH) in Whittier, suffered injuries when one of the rails on her hospital bed collapsed. She was trying to get up from her hospital bed, and as the rail collapsed, she fell to the floor. Her doctor had ordered the rail to be up after conducting an assessment of her medical conditions. Ms. Flores sued the hospital for negligently failing to inspect and maintain the equipment. Her claim was filed just under two years after the date of the underlying incident, March 2, 2011.

PIH demurred to the complaint, arguing that the complaint was governed by California Civil Procedure Code section 340.5 for lawsuits alleging professional negligence and was therefore untimely. Ms. Flores contended that PIH’s negligence was ordinary, not professional. She claimed her complaint was subject to the standard two-year limitations period for personal injury actions. The trial court agreed with PIH and sustained the demurrer.

California Court of Appeal Holds Government Not Liable for Injuries Suffered by Escaping Psychiatric Patient

May 12, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a judgment in a lawsuit involving government liability for an allegedly escaping mental health patient. In this case, the plaintiff suffered injuries after he jumped out the window of his room on the psychiatric floor of a Los Angeles County hospital. The appellate court focused on whether the government was immune from liability, based on the patient’s attempted escape.

Ricardo Manzano had been placed in a single patient room on the sixth floor of an inpatient psychiatric unit at Olive View, a County of Los Angeles Hospital with a licensed psychiatric unit. In the early morning during his stay at Olive View, Mr. Manzano ripped out the Plexiglass covering his window, broke the window, and jumped or fell through the window, suffering serious injuries.

California Court Holds Release of Liability at Trampoline Facility was Clear, Unambiguous, and Explicit

May 9, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed the validity of a release of liability in a lawsuit alleging negligence and premises liability against a trampoline facility. The injured plaintiff, a non-native English speaker, claimed that she had not understood she was signing a document that released all claims against the defendant. The appellate court analyzed whether the release of liability was clear, unambiguous, and explicit.

Plaintiff Diana Torres is a native Spanish speaker and testified via deposition that she could speak, read, and write in English. Defendant House of Air, LLC (HOA) is a trampoline facility in San Francisco where customers can jump or enjoy planned activities on trampolines. There are distinct areas at the facility, including a Training Ground for those hoping to improve their athletic and aerial maneuvers.

California Court of Appeal Holds Reasonable Inference Supports Finding that Employee’s Death Arose Out of and in the Course of Employment

May 5, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether an injury that led to an employee’s death occurred in the course and scope of his employment. The court here examined the weight of circumstantial evidence, particularly in light of the fact that proving industrial causation is difficult in the case of a death. Inferences must be reasonable, but the court stated it is not required that the plaintiff show an inference in his favor is the only one that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence.

Carlos Ivan Rodas, age 32, worked as a dishwasher at Guidos Restaurant. Mr. Rodas died from a pulmonary hemorrhage while taking out the trash at work. He had been wheeling an overflowing trashcan on a dolly to the dumpster. Mr. Rodas’ family retained an internal medicine doctor to opine on the cause of Mr. Rodas’ death. Dr. Ronald Zlotolow, M.D., opined that coughing, brought on by the trash odors, or the lifting of heavy garbage, caused Mr. Rodas’ bleeding.