Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court Provides Leave to Amend Complaint When Plaintiff Potentially Alleged Non-Preempted Claim Under Workers Compensation Act

January 7, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether personal injury claims against an employer were preempted by the Workers’ Compensation Act. The injured employee in this case alleged professional negligence, emotional distress, and other causes of action stemming from injuries he suffered after his employer’s physicians both terminated his prescription medication and failed to indicate the need to wean off the medication. Additionally, the court also analyzed whether a duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the physicians reviewing the plaintiff’s use of a prescription medication.

Plaintiff Kirk King brought a lawsuit against CompPartners, Inc. and Naresh Sharma, M.D., alleging negligence, professional negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Mr. King’s wife, Sara King, sued the defendants for loss of consortium. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend.

California Court Holds University Had No Duty to Protect Delivery Driver Against Injuries Resulting from Inaccurately Labeled Package

January 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the doctrine of primary assumption of risk as it applies to an employee injured in their line of work. The court discussed the fireman’s rule and the veterinarian rule to explain that there is no duty of care owed to those who are harmed by the very hazard posed by their occupation. Relying on the facts of this particular situation and policy considerations, the court barred the injured employee’s recovery.

The plaintiff, Stephen Moore, worked as a United Parcel Service (UPS) driver, and he was injured when he lifted a box with an inaccurate weight label. Mr. Moore had worked for UPS for over 15 years, and he had lifted heavy boxes as part of his position as a UPS delivery driver. UPS instructed their employees on proper lifting techniques and trained them to test the weight of packages before lifting them.
Continue reading ›

California Court Holds Proprietors of Horse Ranch Do Not Have Duty to Reduce Inherent Risk of Horseback Riding

December 31, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed the liability of the proprietors of a horseback riding ranch for an accident involving a rider and a known “bad” horse. In assessing the duty owed by the ranch owners, the court reviewed case law concerning assumption of risk and the distinct liability based on the role a specific defendant plays when an accident takes place in a recreational activity.

In this case, plaintiff June Carter was an experienced equestrienne who had just ridden a horse named IB Brilliant out of an arena at Secret Valley Farm. The Farm is a horse facility owned and operated by defendants Gerald and Anita Heitzler. Colton, a horse known to be dangerous and unpredictable, ran into the metal fence that surrounded the Farm. Ms. Carter was still astride IB Brilliant, who got spooked and threw her off. Ms. Carter alleged that the defendants negligently managed or entrusted the errant horse, and that they failed to warn her or take precautions in the use of the horse.

California Court Holds Witness Testimony Should Not Have Been Excluded as Evidentiary Sanction

December 28, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether the trial court properly excluded witness testimony in support of a car accident victim. An evidence sanction was imposed upon the plaintiff for failing to divulge the witness information in response to discovery requests. The court analyzed the exact nature of the witness testimony, since it served the purpose of providing information on the plaintiff’s injuries and difficulties following the accident.

Karla Mitchell was the plaintiff in a personal injury and property damage lawsuit stemming from a car accident. She filed an action against Ernestine Johnson and Doe defendants, seeking wage loss, loss of use of property, medical bills, property damage, and other damages. Mr. Johnson then propounded form interrogatories upon Ms. Mitchell. In answer to interrogatory No. 12.1, specifically asking for the identification of witnesses to the incident, Ms. Mitchell named one of her children, a passenger in the vehicle.

California Court Holds Car Accident Victims Cannot Recover from Negligent Driver’s Automobile Insurer Due to Teenager’s Regular and Exclusive Use of Non-Covered Vehicle

December 18, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether an insurance policy exclusion applied in a case of a regularly used non-covered vehicle. Typically, insurance policies provide coverage for non-owned, occasionally used vehicles. Most policies exclude coverage for the regular use of vehicles not included in the policy. This exclusion, deemed the “regular use” exclusion, prevents the insured from driving two cars and only maintaining insurance coverage for one car. In this case, the court considered the policy implications of excluding coverage for the victims of an automobile accident caused by a teenage driver of an uninsured vehicle.

Simone Lionudakis, 17 years old, was driving a GMC pickup truck owned and registered to her father when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The accident injured Aweia Shimon and Flora Shimon. The Shimons brought a personal injury lawsuit against Simone and her parents. Simone’s parents were separated.

Simone’s father had excluded her from his insurance policy in order to save money, even though Simone was the only driver of the GMC. Simone’s mother had insurance through Nationwide Mutual Insurance, but she did not have coverage for the GMC. The Nationwide policy provided coverage for the use of a non-owned vehicle, provided that the vehicle was not furnished or available for regular use.

California Court of Appeals Holds Government Not Liable for Risks Inherent in Use of Tree Rope Swing Located In County Park

December 15, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury case involving allegations of negligence on the part of the County of San Diego, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the government was liable for injuries suffered by a teenager using a rope swing located in an open space area. Government Code section 831.7 provides immunity to the government from liability to those injured while participating in “hazardous recreational activities.” There are exceptions to this immunity, and the court analyzed whether those exceptions applied in this case involving a hazardous activity.

Benjamin Casteen was a high school student at the time of the accident. He had used rope swings at Damon Lane County Park for years. While swinging on a tree above a ravine, the rope broke, and Mr. Casteen fell into the ravine, suffering injuries to his head and face. Mr. Casteen stated that his custom and habit was to visually check the rope and branch before taking a small swing to test the rope.

Mr. Casteen sued the County of San Diego on the grounds of general negligence as well as maintenance of a dangerous condition under section 835, arising from actual and constructive notice of the defective condition of the rope swing, failure to maintain the swing, and failure to protect and provide a warning. The County asserted its immunity under section 831.7 and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that a disputed material fact remained as to whether the County deposited debris in the ravine and whether this constituted a separate danger not included in the hazardous activity of rope swinging.

California Appeals Court Holds Substantial Evidence to Support Contrary Finding Does not Compel Conclusion of Insufficient Evidence Supporting the Judgment

December 11, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California Court of Appeal case, the court addressed whether an employer was liable for an employee’s car accident under the “special errand” exception to the rule that an employer is not liable for an employee’s negligent and wrongful acts if they are committed while going to and coming from work. The victim of the car accident argued that the collision took place while the employee was in the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s judgment under the manifest error standard, analyzing whether the appellant sufficiently demonstrated error.

Melvin Gatica worked for Gateway Insulation, Inc., located in Valencia. Early in the workday, he was sent to a job site in Lancaster. Mr. Gatica drove his personal vehicle to Lancaster. He left the Lancaster job site at 5:26 p.m. and drove on a two-lane road. While turning a curve, he crossed the double-yellow line and crashed head-on into a vehicle driven by Nadja Rayii. Ms. Rayii suffered severe injuries.

California Court Holds Employer as Premises Owner Did Not Owe Duty to Protect Family Member from Secondary Exposure to Asbestos

December 8, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

California law provides a remedy for injuries due to a landowner’s action or inaction if it creates an unreasonable risk of harm. In these premises liability cases, courts may interpret the extent of the injury and whether it was foreseeable that the victim would be harmed. A California Court of Appeal addressed the harm from secondary exposure to asbestos, and whether the wife of a man who was exposed to asbestos could bring a claim against her husband’s employer.

Frank Beckering was a machinist for Shell Oil Company for nearly four decades. He died 17 years after retiring, and four years later, his wife sued Shell. Wanda Beckering brought a premises liability case, although she had not visited the Shell locations where her husband worked. Her allegations were based on the fact that after she laundered her husband’s work clothes for decades, she developed mesothelioma.

California Court Rules in Favor of Haunted Hotel as Risk of Fear from Haunted Trail is Risk Inherent in the Activity

December 4, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case involving the assumption of risk doctrine, the California Court of Appeals addressed whether the Haunted Hotel breached their duty to a patron who fled from fear and was injured while running. Assumption of risk is based on the theory that an individual assumes a risk inherent in the fundamental nature of the activity. However, if the risk has been unreasonably increased beyond those inherent to the activity, there may be a legal remedy for the injured individual.

The facts of this case demonstrate that Scott Griffin purchased a ticket for the Haunted Trail, an outdoor haunted house attraction. While patrons walk through the trail, actors jump out of dark spaces while holding props like chainsaws and severed body parts. Mr. Griffin believed he was near the exit of the trail when he was unexpectedly confronted by a final scare. This scare is entitled the “Carrie” effect because of its timing near the end of the attraction. An actor holding a chainsaw (without a chain) approached Mr. Griffin and frightened him. While Mr. Griffin ran away, the actor gave chase, which is what they often do during the attraction. Mr. Griffin fell and was injured while fleeing. He then sued the Haunted Hotel, alleging negligence and assault.

California Court Excludes Evidence of Third-Party Payment to Medical Providers for Lien in Car Accident Case

December 1, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of how to assess economic damages, such as medical expenses, in auto accident cases. Proving the amount of damages in an automobile accident can be complex. In this particular case, the court excluded evidence relating to the amount that a third-party provider paid for a lien. The court held that the probative value of that evidence was outweighed by the likelihood of undue prejudice.

A vehicle driven by Clare Meline struck a vehicle driven by Anna Uspenskaya in a busy intersection. Ms. Uspenskaya suffered spinal injuries, and she ultimately required surgery to correct a herniated lumbar disc. At the time of the accident, Ms. Uspenskaya did not have health insurance. She entered into an agreement with her physicians and the hospital in which they treated her in exchange for a legal right to receive a portion of the damages award she may recover in a personal injury lawsuit. Later, the medical providers sold that lien at a discount to a third-party financial services entity called MedFinManagers LLC.