Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court of Appeals Denies “Power Press” Exception in Work Injury Case

May 22, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in what would ordinarily be considered a workers’ compensation case but for a personal injury exception regarding power presses.

In the case, Gonzalez v. Seal Methods, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 405 (2014), the plaintiff was working for the defendant company in the operation of a power press, when her hand became severely injured by the machine that she was operating. She sued the company under a Labor Code section that allows for such suits in certain cases.

Ordinarily, under California law, when individuals are injured during the course of employment, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available. The employer assumes liability, and the employee does not have to prove fault. However, there are limited statutory exceptions to the workers’ compensation scheme, which are intended to compensate individuals in addition to workers’ compensation.

California Court of Appeals Fails to Find Duty to Preconceived Child in Workplace Chemical Exposure Case

May 18, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent products liability/workplace injury case, Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 451 (2014), the California Court of Appeals had before it an appeal from a lower court’s decision regarding the liability of an employer for the injuries reportedly suffered as birth defects in an employee’s son.

According to the opinion, the employee worked in an environment that exposed him to various chemicals that were reportedly associated with posing risks of harm to the reproductive system. It is unclear from the opinion itself whether the employer knew that the employee was being exposed to the relevant chemicals, since the company had employed an industrial hygienist to ensure that the chemicals were not leaking from the apparatus being used by employees.

California Supreme Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Award

May 14, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent Supreme Court of California decision, Rashidi v. Moser, 339 P. 3d 344, the court had before it a medical malpractice case involving three separate defendants: a doctor, a hospital, and a medical product manufacturer.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff underwent surgery following a severe nosebleed. During the operation, his nasal artery was injected with molecules designed to block the bloodflow. However, when the plaintiff awoke, he was completely blind in one eye. Apparently, the molecules were so small that they had apparently floated into the incorrect area, causing the side effect.

The plaintiff sued the operating doctor and hospital for medical malpractice and related claims, and he sued the manufacturer of the particles for various products liability causes of action. The company settled with the plaintiff for $2 million, and the hospital settled for $350,000.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Decision in Respondeat Superior Car Accident Case

May 12, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, Maiello v. LA Digital Post, Cal. Ct. App. (2015), the court heard the appeal from the granting of summary judgment stemming from a car accident case.

On the day of the alleged incident, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident with an employee of the LA Digital Post. The employee was reportedly on her way back to work following a doctor’s appointment, which she had attended during her lunch break. The plaintiff had filed a negligence claim against LA Digital, under the legal theory of respondeat superior, under which employers can be held liable for the negligent acts of their employees. The trial court granted LA Digital’s motion for summary judgment, denying liability for the employee’s accident.

In order for respondeat superior liability to attach, there must be “a nexus between the employee’s tort and the employment to ensure that liability is properly placed upon the employer.” Here, the plaintiff tried to argue that because the employee would make deposits and trips to the bank on the employer’s behalf, the car accident implicated the use of the car, which was used in the course of her employment for the employer’s benefit. Thus, since the vehicle required for employment was the one involved in the accident, the employer should be held liable for damages.

California Court of Appeals Enters Decision on Car Accident Case Anti-SLAPP Motion

May 7, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A recent case before the California Court of Appeals, Ellis v. Mercury Ins. Co., Cal. Ct. App. (2015), dealt with a situation in which a woman was involved in an automobile accident. Following the accident, the woman, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, had her car insurance company, the defendant, pay for various medical expenses.

Then, after the plaintiff recovered an arbitration award as against the other driver involved in the car accident, the insurance company sought subrogation from the plaintiff to reimburse for the amount they paid out. (Car insurance policies typically include a subrogation clause, whereby if you get “paid twice” for an expense, they are entitled to be repaid the amount that they have paid out.)

The plaintiff did not tender the amount the insurance company claimed entitlement to pursuant to the subrogation, and the insurance company therefore sought a judgment from her in that amount. In response, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the insurance company, claiming breach of contract and other torts.

California Court of Appeals Rules on Trucking Accident Workers’ Compensation Case

May 4, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A recent California Court of Appeals decision dealt with the issue of whether or not a trucking insurance policy precluded recovery for a driver who was injured during an on-duty accident.

In the case, Global Hawk Ins. Co. v. Le, 225 Cal.App.4th 593 (2014), a driver was sleeping in the truck when a second driver crashed it. The sleeping individual was severely injured, suffering a broken neck among other injuries, and he therefore sued the company for which he was working, and the company turned the case over to the insurance company to defend.

Prior to the accident, the company told the driver that he was not an employee, that he would not be eligible for workers’ compensation, that he would be paid a lump sum for the trip, and that no deductions would be made from his pay. They also claimed that he was not entitled to pay, since he did not “complete” the trip in its entirety.

California Court of Appeals Rules in Unsafe Intersection Case

April 30, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent pedestrian accident case, Killings-Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles, Cal. Ct. App. (2015), the California Court of Appeals issued a decision regarding the appeal from a summary judgment motion in a case that alleged a certain intersection was dangerously unsafe.

In the case, two girls were crossing the street when they were struck by a car, which killed one of the girls and rendered the other quadriplegic. The girls’ parents sued on their behalf, alleging that the city was liable for a dangerous condition of public property, in that the intersection had poor visibility and a lack of necessary traffic signals or signs, among other arguments.

The driver who hit the girls had stated that he did not see them as he approached the intersection, and that just prior to the collision, he had looked down to change the music that was playing. The trial court found that it was because of the driver’s negligence that the accident occurred. It also relied on the city’s expert witness and an unrelated case in finding on behalf of the city that there was no issue of material fact, and it thus entered summary judgment.

Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Los Angeles Doctor in Malpractice Decision

April 28, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals opinion, Hoffman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cal. Ct. App (2014), the court decided the issue of the properness of the lower court’s decision to strike an expert witness declaration in a medical malpractice case, which accompanied a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant.

The plaintiff filed an action for medical negligence against a doctor and the hospital where he worked, alleging that the doctor had performed a negligent hernia surgery. The plaintiff alleged that the health care services provided to him fell below the standard of care, allegedly causing him to suffer serious and permanent injury.

The doctor moved for summary judgment and provided a declaration by another doctor, who stated his opinion that the defendant doctor acted within the standard of care for the type of surgeon practicing in that geographic area, Southern California. His declaration reportedly further stated that “with a reasonable degree of medical probability, neither his acts nor omissions” led to the plaintiff’s injuries.

California Court of Appeals Says PG&E Failure to Trim Trees Case Can Move Forward

April 24, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals rendered an interesting decision in a recent case, Mata v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 224 Cal. App. 4th 309 (2014), regarding the potential liability of a utilities company on the theory of premises liability for allegedly negligently failing to trim trees near power lines adequately.

In the case, the plaintiffs were the heirs of a decedent who was trimming a redwood tree when he was electrocuted by a high voltage power line of the defendants. The vegetation in the area had reportedly been trimmed in accordance with PG&E’s relevant requirements, but the plaintiffs claimed that those levels were insufficient to ensure proper safety.

Premises liability lawsuits are based on the fact that property owners are required to maintain their property at a certain level of safety. The particular level of safety depends upon to whom the duty is owed, and also upon the nature of the potential hazard.

California Court of Appeals Affirms Jury’s Purported Use of Math in Accident Verdict

April 20, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals decision, Trapasso v. Romero, Cal. Ct. App. (2014), the court had to rule on the issue of alleged jury misconduct according to allegations the plaintiff made that jurors engaged in misconduct by making calculations related to potential speed as related to a motorcycle and truck accident.

In the case, several motorcyclists were attempting to pass a truck that was pulling a trailer at a low rate of speed, when one of the motorcyclists collided with the vehicle as it turned left.

At trial, the main sources of contention were how fast the motorcyclists were travelling, in what formation, and whether the truck had used its turn signal prior to beginning its turn. There was conflicting expert witness testimony regarding the speed allegations, and conflicting witness testimony was presented regarding the truck’s use of a left hand turn signal and the speed of the motorcyclists.