Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Appellate Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Hotel Where Plaintiffs Injured by Independent Security Guards During Election Protested on Hotel Premises

March 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, Second District, the appellate court addressed whether a hotel had adequate foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs injured during a protest. The court also examined whether an exception applied to the general rule that an employer is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor. Analysis centered on the elements of both premises liability and negligence claims, specifically, whether defendants owed a duty to plaintiffs under the circumstances of the case.

Plaintiffs Firouzeh Ghaffarpour and Nabiollah Najafi Moallem appealed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Commerce Plaza Hotel. Plaintiffs contended that the Hotel owed them a duty, and was vicariously liable for the actions of its independent contractor security guards. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing an exception to the principle of nonliability for independent contractors. The court also found Plaintiffs failed to show that the Hotel was directly liable for failing to protect them from criminal assault and battery. According to the appellate court, the Hotel did, however, fail to render aid because it owed a duty to summon aid to Plaintiffs.

California Court of Appeal Reverses Judgment in Favor of Cable Company When Triable Issue Remains Regarding Duty to Remedy Exposed Cable

March 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The court of appeal recently reviewed a judgment in favor of a cable company in a personal injury lawsuit involving allegations of negligence. In this case, the court set forth the four elements of a negligence claim, including duty, breach, causation, and damages. Their analysis focused on whether the cable company owed a duty to the plaintiff, and whether the company had notice of the allegedly defective condition that gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court reversed the summary judgment adjudication in favor of the cable company, finding that triable issues of fact remained.

John Reis sued Time Warner NY Cable, LLC after suffering injuries when he tripped over a Time Warner cable that emerged from the ground in his yard in Chino Hills. Time Warner moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it could not be held liable because it did not install the cable, nor did it breach any duty to Mr. Reis respecting the cable.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Waiver of Liability for Spiritual Substance Abuse Home Because Waiver Supports Nonessential Activity that Benefits the Public

March 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal issued a recent opinion holding that a waiver of liability did not violate public policy when it was signed in consideration for room and board, and spiritual support for substance abuse. The court examined the benefits of upholding the waiver, particularly for organizations that provide help to the public and need to be able to conduct themselves without fear of potential litigation. In conclusion, the court rejected the plaintiff’s allegations that the waiver went against public policy.

In His Steps Christian Recovery Home, Inc. (IHS) is a nonprofit organization that provides regulations-based support and residential recovery for adults with drug- and alcohol-related problems. The IHS home was not subject to licensure by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.

California Court of Appeals Holds Good Cause Existed to Reopen a Case Involving Disability Award Due to Change in Injured Employee’s Disability

March 8, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A case before the California Court of Appeal addressed the circumstances in which a stipulated award could be rescinded or revised. In this workers’ compensation lawsuit, the parties had entered a stipulation based on the evidence demonstrating the injured plaintiff’s temporary disability. At the time, a test had been completed showing a different disability level, but the results of that test were not factored into the award. The employee petitioned to reopen, on the grounds that his condition had worsened. On appeal, the court found the employee had shown that the award should have been revised because it was inequitable.

Leopoldo Benavides, a roofer, fell off an angled roof in the course of his job, fracturing his ankle and injuring his back. An agreed medical evaluator (AME) evaluated Mr. Benavides and found that his lumbar spine had a compression fracture, and he had residual weakness in his right ankle. He gave a 21 percent whole person impairment for Mr. Benavides’ spine.

California Court of Appeal Upholds Jury Verdict in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Prove Negligence Substantially Caused the Harm Suffered

March 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal decision, the court reviewed a personal injury case stemming from a fatality suffered at a construction site. In this wrongful death action, the son of the deceased person brought negligence claims against the driver of a truck, the construction company, and the truck hauling service after the truck backed up and hit his father during an asphalt paving project. While the jury found that the driver was negligent, they did not conclude that his negligence substantially caused the harm. On appeal, the court reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations that the trial court abused its discretion regarding the particular jury instructions issued, and that the evidence did not support the verdict.

On June 17, 2010, Paul Michaelson was working as a truck driver for V&J Rock Transport when he backed up his truck and ran over Dan Toste at an asphalting project on State Route 135. Mr. Toste was the project’s general contractor, and he had been standing behind the truck trailer in a blind spot. Mr. Michaelson agreed to take a drug test and tested positive for marijuana, having a high level of marijuana metabolite in his urine.

California Supreme Court Approves Public Entity Design Immunity Defense in Intersection Car Accident Case

March 1, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Supreme Court clarified an issue central to public agency tort defense. A public entity may be liable for dangerous conditions on public property, including roads, but design immunity, an affirmative defense, can shield them. The agency must demonstrate three requirements: a causal relationship between the design and the accident, discretionary approval of the design, and evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan. In this case, the Court analyzed the second element, approval of the design.

Plaintiff Randall Keith Hampton was seriously injured in a collision between his vehicle and another at the intersection of Miller and Cole Grade Roads in San Diego County. While attempting a left turn, Mr. Hampton alleged he pulled forward from Miller Road onto Cole Grade Road. Mr. Hampton and his wife sued defendant Robert Cullen, the driver of the other vehicle. The Hamptons alleged Mr. Cullen’s negligence caused the accident. Mr. Hampton suffered brain injuries and could not recall if he had stopped at the stop sign at the intersection. An on-scene officer of the California Highway Patrol concluded that Mr. Hampton caused the accident when he failed to stop at a stop sign on Miller Road before entering the intersection.

California Court Holds Prevailing Defendants in Personal Injury Lawsuit Can Recover Expert Fees Only When Judgment Entered as to All Defendants

February 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed the rules of law concerning settlements, particularly those involving a lawsuit with multiple defendants. The California Code of Civil Procedure maintains that a plaintiff that does not accept a settlement offer and then does not receive a more favorable judgment may be required to pay the defendant’s expert witness fees. In this case, some of the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit sought to recover their fees before final judgment was entered as to all defendants.

Brian Kahn brought a lawsuit against 20 defendants for his personal injuries. He claimed that as a resident of a mobile home park in San Fernando, he was exposed to hazardous gases due to the defendants’ previous use of the land as an industrial waste disposal site. Before trial, all 20 defendants jointly made an offer to settle the lawsuit for $75,000, according to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Mr. Kahn rejected the offer.

California Court of Appeals Allows Cross-Defendant to Recover Costs in Car Accident Lawsuit, Remands to Determine Reasonable and Necessary Costs

February 22, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal opinion, the court addressed the issue of cost recovery on behalf of a cross-defendant in an underlying car accident lawsuit. The court analyzed the law providing that a prevailing party in an action may recover costs as a matter of right. In addition, the court analyzed whether the costs to defend the lawsuit were reasonable and necessary to the party’s defense.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs sued Mr. Pritchett, Ford, and Lithia of Fresno, Inc. to recover damages for personal injuries. Mr. Pritchett cross-complained against Ford and Lithia for equitable indemnity.

Mr. Pritchett settled with the plaintiffs, paying his insurance policy limits of $1.5 million, contingent on the settlement being made in good faith. The plaintiffs then dismissed their case against Mr. Pritchett. Lithia settled with the plaintiffs, and the matter went to trial between the plaintiffs and Ford.

California Court Remands Case for Retrial of Insured’s Bad Faith and Breach of Contract Claims

February 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the issue centered on the interpretation of an insurance policy provision for covered causes of property loss. Many insurance policies, from automobile insurance to home insurance policies, include explicit language stating the terms for coverage. In this case, the plaintiff sued his insurance company for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding coverage for water damage to his rental house after it collapsed.

Artyun Vardanyan owned a rental property covered by an insurance policy issued by Amco Insurance Company. On December 6, 2010, Mr. Vardanyan submitted a claim to Amco stating he believed there was water damage to the flooring, caused by the walls. Amco sent an independent insurance adjuster, who then instructed Amco to have an engineer inspect the house.

California Court Upholds Right of Entertainment Center to Recover Attorney Fees from Arcade Game Manufacturer for Defending Injury Claims Brought by Injured Plaintiff

February 15, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed a fee dispute resting on an underlying personal injury lawsuit.

Plaintiff Hyo Hyun was playing an arcade game, The King of Hammer, when he was struck by a piece attached to the game. The game involved using a hammer to hit a cylinder, achieving the highest score. After using the hammer to hit the cylinder, the hammer “coiled back” and hit him in the nose. There were no staff members from Round One Entertainment, the operator of the entertainment center, providing assistance or instructions regarding the game.

Mr. Hyun was taken to a hospital and suffered a fractured nose and other injuries. He underwent surgery and alleged he still needed plastic reconstructive surgery, a “septoplasty.” Mr. Hyun testified that he experienced constant nose pain and missed a month of work.