Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court of Appeals Holds that Evidence Sustains Jury’s Verdict that Railroad Company was Not Negligent

May 2, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals analyzed whether the evidence supported a lower court’s determination that a railroad company was not negligent in regard to the fatalities of two minors who drove their vehicle onto railroad tracks on the morning after Halloween.

In the dark, early morning hours after Halloween in 2007, a Union Pacific Railroad freight train about a mile long and holding three locomotives and 86 cars fatally collided with a sport utility vehicle driven onto the railroad tracks by Renee Ammari and Tanya Sayegh before the accident.

Conductor Glen Lee Holmes and Carl Zipperman, the engineer, operated the train and sat next to each other in the first locomotive cab. The SUV was stuck, and Ms. Ammari and Ms. Sayegh died when the train struck their vehicle. Their parents sued defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Glen Lee Holmes for negligence.

California Court of Appeal Holds Employee of Six Months Failed to Prove Psychiatric Injuries Resulted from a “Sudden and Extraordinary Condition”

April 28, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeals addressed a claim for workers’ compensation by an employee who had worked for his employer for 74 days before slipping and falling, resulting in numerous injuries. In this case, the court asked whether the accident responsible for the employee’s psychiatric injuries was in fact “sudden and extraordinary,” according to the Labor Code. The applicable section of the Labor Code provides that when an employee of less than six months is seeking to recover compensation for a psychiatric injury, the underlying accident causing the injury must have been sudden, rather than something that is common or routine to employment.

Mark Dreher worked as a live-in maintenance supervisor for an apartment complex owned by Alliance Residential. While walking in the rain from one building to another in the complex, Mr. Dreher slipped and fell on a slippery concrete walkway. At the time of the accident, Mr. Dreher had worked for Alliance for 74 days.

California Appellate Court Affirms Finding of No Liability for Assault Against Man Outside Ozzy Osbourne Concert

April 21, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion issued by the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit could meet his burden upon a summary judgment motion. In this case, the court focused on the causation element of the plaintiff’s negligence claims. The defendants’ alleged negligence must have directly caused the plaintiff’s resulting injuries. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s own admissions regarding the attack that took place, and it concluded that the plaintiff had not sufficiently met his burden to show a triable issue of fact, defeating the defendant’s summary judgment motion.James Maddalena was assaulted outside the San Manuel Amphitheater, where an “Ozzfest” music festival was going to take place. On the day of the incident, Mr. Maddalena met his friend in a crowded picnic area near the VIP parking lot. Mr. Maddalena’s friend identified a man who had an extra ticket, and Mr. Maddalena approached the man to inquire about the ticket. The man said he would sell the ticket. Mr. Maddalena turned toward his friend, and when he awoke the next morning, he was in the hospital, having suffered head injuries and lacking a recollection of what had happened. Mr. Maddalena had not met the man before, nor had there been a warning sign to suggest he would be attacked. He later testified that the attack came out of the blue.

California Court of Appeal Holds Defendant’s Decision to Drive Drunk Caused Vehicle Accident, Not Hotel’s Decision to Throw Defendant Off Premises

April 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court reviewed the issue of causation in a personal injury lawsuit based on an underlying vehicle collision caused by a drunk driver. California law holds generally that social hosts who furnish alcohol to guests cannot be liable for injuries caused by guests.
In this case, a hotel threw out an intoxicated individual who then drove his vehicle and caused a serious car accident. The appellate court stated that the hotel did not cause the accident, and while the hotel may have a special relationship with guests, it is not required to protect them from harm outside the hotel.

Christopher Lee Zink and his friends partied, and after a night of drinking, Mr. Zink and his friends returned to Clock Tower Hotel and arranged to stay the evening. In the early morning hours, the Hotel demanded that Mr. Zink leave the premises, threatening to involve police if he did not leave. Mr. Zink asked the Hotel representative to reconsider, but they refused. Mr. Zink then proceeded to drive home, approximately 20 miles.

California Court of Appeals Holds Collateral Estoppel Bars Relitigating Issue Determined in Small Claims Proceeding

April 14, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a small claims action precludes further litigation of issues before a trial court. While policy reasons support a finding of issue preclusion, the court here stated that only when it can be determined the same issues were actually litigated in small claims court will the parties be precluded from relitigating their issues.

Don Phuong Gedenberg pulled his tractor-trailer, owned by his employer, Valley Recycling, out of a driveway in San Jose, California. He parked his vehicle on the shoulder, facing traffic. Mr. Gedenberg did not sufficiently straighten his vehicle, and the front right portion of the trailer jutted into the southbound lane.

A Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) bus collided with Valley Recycling’s trailer. The driver was injured, and the trailer and bus were severely damaged. Valley Recycling’s insurance company filed a complaint to recover $44,166.67 in damages to the tractor-trailer. SCVTA’s insurance company, Great American, and SCVTA filed a cross-complaint, seeking to recover their losses due to the damage to SCVTA’s bus.

California Court Holds Dodger Stadium Not Liable in Slip and Fall Case

April 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit before the California Court of Appeal, a man alleged he suffered injuries when he slipped and fell at Dodger Stadium. The court analyzed whether the Dodgers had knowledge of a dangerous condition and could be held liable.

Plaintiff Fernando Maravilla fell in an aisle during a game at Dodger Stadium. He then brought a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Dodgers moved for summary judgment, noting inconsistencies in Mr. Maravilla’s story about the occurrences and whether he had been standing or walking when he fell.

California Appellate Court Upholds Finding that Plaintiff Partially Caused Motor Vehicle Collision

April 7, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court reviewed a jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a car accident. In this case, the court found the evidence supported the verdict, particularly the finding of comparative fault on behalf of the driver. Since the plaintiff had been speeding, it was appropriate for the jury to find her conduct partially caused the collision.

Plaintiff Charlene Adams and defendant Beth Jordan were involved in a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Gilman and Fourth Streets. The posted speed limit on Gilman Street is 25 miles per hour. At the time of the crash, traffic was congested, and it was dark. Lowered barriers blocked Gilman Street at a railroad crossing approximately one block west of Fourth Street.

The defendant testified she stopped at the stop sign at Gilman and slowly entered the intersection, crossing the westbound lane of Gilman Street. She looked down the eastbound lane and did not see approaching headlights. While crossing the eastbound lane, she was hit by the plaintiff’s car, driving east. The defendant’s car spun around from the force of the impact.

California Court Holds State Owed no Duty to Protect Child From Falling Tree at Campsite

April 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a Court of Appeal case, the court analyzed the applicable Government Claims Act natural condition immunity statute in a case involving an accident at a campground in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Turning to policy considerations, the court stated that providing immunity for public places, particularly recreational areas, allows for increased availability without the potential liability of defending claims for injuries. Here, the court addressed whether the lower court committed an error in granting summary judgment in favor of the government.

Alana M., a minor, was camping with her family in Portola Redwoods State Park. The park is owned by the State and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). The State has built campsites throughout the park, including Portola Campground. Tanoak trees, indigenous to the area, surround the campground.

Alana was three years old at the time of the accident underlying this case. While the family was sleeping in their tent at a campsite in the Portola Campground, Alana was struck by a tree that fell on the campsite. She suffered brain damage. The tree was 86 to 96 feet tall, and it had snapped and broken three feet from the ground.

California Court of Appeals Finds California Law Applies in Lawsuit Against Car Insurance Company Despite Fact that Collision Occurred in Arkansas

March 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of forum, or the place of jurisdiction where a lawsuit involving an underlying car accident would be held. In this opinion, the issue was whether the lawsuit should be heard in Arkansas, the location of the accident, or California, where the insured individuals resided and where they had purchased their car insurance policy. The appellate court applied the “governmental interest” analysis to determine the choice of law issue, ultimately holding that California was the forum state.

Errol T. Howertown and Diane McCracken (“the insureds”) were involved in a motor vehicle collision while traveling in Arkansas. Timothy McFarland, an uninsured motorist, struck a deer and then struck their vehicle. The insureds allegedly suffered injuries due to the collision.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Finding in Favor of Ice Center Under Primary Assumption of Risk When Ice Hockey Game Spectator Injured by Stray Puck

March 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A recent opinion from the California Court of Appeal addressed the primary assumption of risk doctrine. This doctrine, applied to inherently dangerous activities, holds that there is no duty to eliminate the risks posed by the activity, but there is a duty not to unreasonably increase risks. In this case, the issue was whether an ice center was liable under a premises liability claim when a spectator was injured by a hockey puck while watching a game.

Pagman Khodabandeh and Zubi Khodabandeh brought a lawsuit against Ice Center Enterprises, LLC (Ice Center), alleging that Pagman had been struck by a hockey puck while watching an ice hockey game at Ice Center in San Mateo. The complaint included a cause of action for premises liability and Zubi, Pagman’s mother, alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress.