Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court Finds Plaintiff Pursuing Premises Liability Claim Did Not Prove Property Owner Knew of Dangerous Condition of Stairwell

February 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal ruled in a negligence and premises liability lawsuit involving whether the defendant had notice of any dangerous condition. Premises liability claims require that in addition to showing the elements of a negligence claim (duty, breach, causation, and damages), there must also be a showing that the property owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition. In this case, the court looked to the evidence presented by the plaintiff concerning the defendant’s notice.

Wilson Dante Perry brought this lawsuit for injuries suffered when he fell on an exterior stairway owned by defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase). Mr. Perry alleged that Chase had negligently designed, developed, operated, and maintained the stairway. This negligence, according to Mr. Perry, caused his fall and resulting injuries. Chase moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Perry could not satisfy his burden of proving a dangerous condition existed on the property, or that Chase knew of such a dangerous condition.

Mr. Perry’s challenge to the summary judgment was based on the trial court’s error in excluding the expert declarations that he submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Perry had not participated in the exchange of expert witness information prior to trial, nor had he designated any expert witness. The trial court sustained Chase’s evidentiary objections and granted the motion for summary judgment on the basis that Mr. Perry had not submitted evidence to dispute the facts that Chase breached no duty of care and had no knowledge of a dangerous condition.

California Court of Appeal Holds Supplier of Mineral Spirit Used in Cleaning Solvent Not Entitled to Component Parts Doctrine Defense

February 8, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a raw materials supplier of mineral spirits was entitled to a defense from tort liability, the component parts doctrine. In this case, the distributor provided a product used in a cleaning solvent that allegedly caused the plaintiffs’ leukemia. The component parts doctrine allows suppliers and distributors of non-inherently dangerous materials to avoid liability. The court discussed the rationale behind the doctrine, stating that the defendant had not shown that their mineral spirits were not inherently dangerous.

Plaintiffs Ernest Brady and David Gibbs both worked as mechanics from 1989 to 2007, and 1973 to 2006, respectively. Part of their duties included degreasing and scrubbing automotive parts, using Safety-Kleen 105 Solvent. In 2008, the plaintiffs brought separate products liability lawsuits against Safety-Kleen and its suppliers. The cases were consolidated, and Calsol was added as a defendant. Calsol was a distributor of mineral spirits to Safety-Kleen between 1993 and 1996.

The plaintiffs alleged causes of action against Calsol for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium. In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended their leukemia was caused by the carcinogen benzene. Benzene was present in the mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen.

California Court of Appeal Holds that Personal Representative in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Stands in Position of Heirs

February 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a personal representative in a wrongful death lawsuit represents the heirs in the proceeding. While a personal representative may have interests that align with the interests of a particular heir, the rule is that their duty is to stand in the position of the decedent’s heirs.

Marjorie Fitzpatrick had three children, one of whom was plaintiff Valerie Monschke. Ms. Monschke enrolled Ms. Fitzpatrick into one of defendant Timber Ridge Assisted Living, LLC’s (Timber Ridge) facilities, due to her mother’s dementia. Ms. Monschke, acting as power of attorney for her mother, signed a residency agreement allowing Timber Ridge to provide services for her mother. This agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring that all claims and disputes be resolved by submission to arbitration.

In her complaint, Ms. Monschke alleged that her mother was allowed to exit an exterior door of the defendant’s facility without supervision. She suffered a fall and was left outside for 30 to 45 minutes. She suffered injuries, including a displaced wrist, subarachnoid hemorrhage, downward displaced fracture of the tip of her nasal bone, and bruising. She died of her injuries two weeks later.

California Court Holds County Has Right to Recovery of Funds Held by Car Accident Victim

February 1, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal addressed a complication arising from a statute providing the government with compensation after paying for the medical treatment of tort victims. Government Code section 23004.1 gives counties a right of action against the tortfeasor, as well as a lien against judgments secured by the injured person against the tortfeasor. In this case, the tortfeasor issued a check in the amount of the lien but made it payable to the county and the injured person, who then refused to endorse the check to the county. The issue before the court was how to enforce the county’s right to recovery.

Jose Tinoco, while working for Fresh Express, injured Javier Escobar when he negligently operated a vehicle. Mr. Escobar was treated at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, a hospital owned by the County of Santa Clara.

The value of the treatment and care was alleged to be $1,249,545.38. Mr. Escobar brought a lawsuit against Mr. Tinoco and Fresh Express and recovered a judgment for $5,689,624.87. The County of Santa Clara asserted a lien against the judgment, according to Government Code section 23004.1. Fresh Express paid the amount of $1,249,545.38 to Mr. Escobar’s attorney, made out to the County and to the law firm representing Mr. Escobar.

California Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Due to Failure to Meet Burden of Proof Regarding Negligence Claim

January 27, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the duty owed by a property owner to individuals on their premises. Generally, a property owner owes a duty to avoid posing foreseeable dangers to those lawfully on their property. One exception is if the property owner had no control over the tortfeasor, such as if they are an independent contractor. The court in this case held that to demonstrate an individual is an independent contractor, both common law and statutory requirements must be met.

Randall Blackwell, the plaintiff in this personal injury lawsuit, alleged he was at the top of a ladder installing rain gutters at a property owned by defendant Ray Vasilas when he stepped onto a scaffolding that collapsed. Mr. Blackwell fell 10 feet onto a pile of bricks, injuring himself.

California Court of Appeal Reverses Judgment Holding Public Utilities Commission Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Personal Injury Claims from Effects of Stray Voltage

January 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed a jurisdictional issue relating to personal injury claims concerning stray voltage from or returning to electrical substations. The issue on appeal was whether the Public Utilities Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s allegations of harm. The court relied upon the California Supreme Court’s three-prong test to determine whether the Public Utilities Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

In a fourth amended complaint, Kathy Seacrist and her son, John McDonald, brought claims of negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability/products liability, implied warranty of fitness, ultra hazardous activity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Palm Desert, as well as Does 5 through 100. Ms. Seacrist owned a house near an Edison substation in Indian Wells. She and her son contended that stray electrical currents left the substation and caused them to suffer medical issues.

California Court of Appeal Holds Evidence of Industry Custom Relevant in Lawsuit for Compensation Following Car Accident

January 21, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Having brought claims of negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranties, the couple suing the car manufacturer appealed the decision of the lower court to deny their exclusion of evidence comparing the vehicle to competitors. The issue was whether evidence of industry custom and practice is always inadmissible.

Mr. Kim swerved in his 2005 Toyota Tundra while on the highway in order to avoid hitting a car driving in the opposite direction that had crossed over the center line. He attempted to regain control of his truck, which had veered too far right, but he eventually drove off the highway into an embankment. The truck rolled, and he suffered serious injuries.

California Court Holds Government Not Liable for Fatality Caused by Alleged Dangerous Condition of Public Property Due to Lack of Control

January 18, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal held that the defendant in a personal injury lawsuit could not be held liable because they did not own the property on which an alleged dangerous condition caused the victim’s death. California law requires that to be liable for a dangerous condition, one must own or control the property at the time of the injury. In this particular case, the property was allegedly owned by the government, and the dangerous condition existed in the remnant of what was called Dennett Dam, near the Tuolumne River. The court found that since the government did not own the dam for the purposes of liability, they could not be found liable for the plaintiffs’ loss.

Keith Goddard and Kirsty Monroe, the children of Leonard Goddard, sued the State of California after their father drowned in the Tuolumne River, downstream from the former Dennett Dam. Mr. Goddard was 56 years old at the time of the fatal accident, and he was caught in a current over a breach in the remnant of the Dam. The plaintiffs alleged that the State and other public entities were liable for their father’s death, due to a dangerous condition of public property, under Government Code section 835.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) answered the complaint on behalf of the State and moved for summary judgment. They contended they could not be liable under section 835 because they did not control or own the dam remnant. They also alleged that since Mr. Goddard’s death was caused by a natural condition, they were immune from liability under section 831.2.

California Court of Appeals Holds that Mixed Use Bikepath Provides Trail Immunity to UC Regents for Personal Injury Claims Based on Condition of Path

January 14, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed whether governmental immunity applied to bar the personal injury claims brought by the parents of a fatally injured student bicyclist. Government Code section 831.4. provides a recreational trail immunity, and on appeal the issue was whether the causes of action for a dangerous condition of public property and wrongful death were barred as a matter of law, providing the Regents of the University of California absolute immunity.

Adrian Burgueno was a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He lived off campus and commuted to the university on his bicycle. He traveled to campus on the Great Meadow Bikeway, a paved bike path. This separate bicycle transportation path allows travel to and from the central campus, and a number of bicycle accidents have taken place on the Bikeway.

California Court of Appeal Holds City of San Francisco Had Valid Lien on Victim’s Recovery in Lawsuit Following Car Accident

January 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the City of San Francisco properly placed a lien on settlement proceeds for the recovery of medical care costs provided to an injured victim of an accident. The City paid for the victim’s medical care when he was hit by a car, and the victim sued the driver of the car for damages. The victim then argued that the City’s lien against his recovery was invalid because it was preempted by California law.

Jagdishwar Chand suffered injuries after being struck by a car. He was treated at San Francisco General Hospital and then brought a lawsuit against the driver of the car that hit him. He settled with the driver for $100,000 and then filed a notice of partial settlement. The City filed a medical reimbursement lien for $370,000 in Mr. Chand’s personal injury case. They sought recovery of the cost of medical care provided to him.