California Injury Lawyer Blog

July 24, 2018

California Supreme Court Hears Negligent Hiring Case

handshake California tort law allows employers to be held responsible for the tortious conduct of their employees under certain circumstances. One of the theories under which liability can fall on the employer is when they negligently hire someone that they should have known posed a danger. This also extends to negligent supervision when the employer should have known that the employee needed more supervision than their employer gave them. The California Supreme Court recently addressed some of these issues in a case that centered around whether an employer’s insurance company had to pay claims that arose from these causes of action. If you have been injured by someone else, you may be able to hold their employer responsible for your injuries. A knowledgeable Southern California personal injury attorney can help you to hold all the responsible parties accountable.

Tortious Conduct

A Southern California school district hired contractors to oversee a building project. One of the contractor’s employees allegedly sexually abused one of the students at the school. Her representatives sued several parties, including the contractors. They alleged that the contractors should be held liable for negligently hiring and supervising the employee who assaulted the student. The contractors reached out to their insurers to defend them against the claims, but the insurance company argued that their policy did not cover this incident.

July 16, 2018

California Clarifies Statute of Limitations for In Utero Toxic Exposure Claims

by Neumann Law Group

time There are many chemicals that can cause birth defects in pregnant women who are exposed to them. Generally, the statute of limitations for toxic exposure cases is only two years. That means that if you try to bring a toxic exposure claim after the two years have elapsed, the claims will likely be time barred. However, with cases of in utero toxic exposure, it may take much longer than two years to fully understand the nature and causes of the injuries. Thatis why prenatal injuries have a six year statute of limitations.

Seemingly in conflict with the two- and six-year statute of limitations, the statute of limitations for toxic exposure cases is generally tolled while the injured party is a minor. A case heard by the California Supreme Court centers around whether the six years apply to in utero toxic exposure or whether a potential plaintiff has until they are 19 or 20 (18 plus the two years, give or take a bit due to when the exposure occurs) to bring the claim.

If you suspect that you have been injured by toxic exposure, whether in utero or as an adult, you should contact a knowledgeable Southern California personal injury attorney as soon as possible. Time is of the essence to make sure you get your claim filed within the time limits.

June 26, 2018

Spider Bite Case Allowed to Move Forward, Per California Court of Appeals

by Neumann Law Group

Black widow spider
One of the benefits of living in California is that many parts of the state have great weather. Due to the pleasant conditions, lots of restaurants have outdoor patio seating for patrons to enjoy their meals under the sun. However, sometimes disaster strikes. In this case, a woman was eating lunch on the patio of a restaurant when she was bit by a spider, which was later discovered to be a black widow spider. After being hospitalized with weakness and numbness due to the injuries, the woman who was bitten sued the restaurant where the bite occurred for damages. If you have been hurt in any way while on the premises of another individual or a business, they may be liable for your injuries. That’s why it is so important to contact a skilled Southern California premises liability attorney as soon as possible if you are injured, even if at first it may not seem to be the fault of the establishment.

Negligence

The main legal concept in this case is negligence. In order to prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the negligent party had a duty to them that it breached. Generally, businesses and individuals have a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances. What is and is not reasonable is usually a question for the jury. The jury looks at all the facts of the case and then decides whether the defendant’s behavior was reasonable or not. There are some areas where the law has specifically carved out exceptions, but generally the concepts of negligence law will apply.

June 11, 2018

California Court of Appeals Holds Employer Not Liable for Accident Injuries

by Neumann Law Group

damaged car
If you injure someone while engaging in your normal job duties, your employer may be able to be held liable for those injuries. This is called “vicarious liability.” The problem is that if you are sometimes required to use your personal vehicle for work and there is an accident, it may not be clear whether there should be vicarious liability or not. This case clarifies when an employer can be held liable through vicarious liability when an employee injures someone while driving their personal vehicle. If you are injured in an accident, it’s important to contact a skilled Southern California personal injury attorney as soon as possible. They can help you to figure out who should be held responsible for your injuries, and make sure that all potentially liable parties are, in fact, held responsible.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the driver and owner of the vehicle was an attorney who worked for the County of Los Angeles. As part of his job he would often need to use his personal vehicle to visit clients in jail, go to different courthouses where clients were being tried, and visit crime scenes or meet witnesses. It would have been impossible for him to do his job without using his car relatively frequently. The attorney was eligible to be paid mileage by his employer when he used his car for these purposes.

December 15, 2017

California Upholds Ruling for Defendant in Hit and Run Case

by Neumann Law Group

A teenage driver was intoxicated when he was involved in a hit and run accident with a woman and her daughter. The woman’s husband was driving nearby and witnessed the collision. The family filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and his employer, Sergio’s El Ranchito (a restaurant). The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District affirmed the judgment in this California car accident case.

car accident
On appeal, the family did not challenge the court’s legal analysis of the issues. Instead, they maintained that the court should reverse the judgment because the ruling was based on procedural defects. Namely, the restaurant’s moving papers did not specifically address the negligent supervision allegations and therefore did not properly shift the burden of proof to the family. Additionally, they contended the restaurant’s efforts to address negligent supervision for the first time in its reply brief were improper, and the trial court should not have considered this argument when deciding the motion for summary judgment. The appeals court concluded that neither contention had merit.

The complaint alleged the restaurant negligently supervised its underage employees because the driver either had access to, or was directly provided, alcoholic beverages on the premises. Thus, the family’s theory for recovery was that the restaurant should have known their unsupervised underage employees were going to drink while at work, and therefore it was foreseeable they would drive while intoxicated and injure a third party. To prove this claim, the family needed proof the restaurant was aware the underage employees had access to, or were provided, alcohol during work hours, and it failed to adequately supervise these underage employees by locking up the alcohol.

December 8, 2017

California Appeals Court Holds Subrogation Includes “All Benefits” Paid by Employer in Slip & Fall Indemnity Case

by Neumann Law Group

A plaintiff sued Wal-Mart for injuries she sustained at one of Wal-Mart’s stores while acting within the course and scope of her employment with Acosta, Inc. The trial court found Wal-Mart liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Under California Labor Code sections 3852 and 3856, appellant Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Hartford) applied for a lien on the plaintiff’s judgment to obtain reimbursement for the California workers’ compensation benefits it paid her. Although the judgment included compensation for her medical expenses, it did not include compensation for her lost wages. The court granted Hartford a lien on the judgment but reduced the lien amount.

money
In August 2012, the plaintiff was working for Acosta when she fell and injured herself on Wal-Mart’s premises. Hartford was Acosta’s workers’ compensation insurer and paid the victim more than $152,000 in benefits, including more than $115,000 in medical expenses and roughly $37,000 in temporary disability indemnity for her lost wages.

In July 2014, following a three-day bench trial, the court found Wal-Mart 100 percent at fault and entered judgment against Wal-Mart for $355,000, including $178,000 in past medical expenses, $102,000 in future medical expenses, and $75,000 in past and future pain and suffering. Although the complaint sought lost wages and earning capacity, the court did not award her damages for these items because she did not ask for them at trial.

December 1, 2017

California Appeals Court Holds Church Not Liable for Accident Related to Adjacent Parking Lot

by Neumann Law Group

A plaintiff was hit by a car as he crossed a street between defendant Grace Family Church and the church’s parking lot. He sued the church for negligence, alleging that the church was negligent in breaching its duty of care to help him safely cross the street. The trial court granted the church’s motion for summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision in this California premises liability case, and last month, the California Supreme Court reversed the appeals court’s decision and remanded the case.

church
In his initial lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the church owed him a duty of care to help him cross the street. The church responded that it had no control over the public street and thus did not owe a duty to prevent the plaintiff’s injury, contending that landowners have no duty to protect others from dangers on adjacent streets unless the owner created the danger.

Before the state supreme court, the parties stipulated that the church did not control the street and did not create the dangers on the street. But the church, the plaintiff argued, by directing the plaintiff to park there, foreseeably increased the likelihood that the plaintiff would cross the street and become injured. Thus, the circumstances differed from those in which a landowner simply owns property next to a public street.

November 22, 2017

California Appeals Court Holds Defendant Building Owners Not Responsible for Attack On Building Manager

by Neumann Law Group

The sole proprietor of a property management company, independent contractor plaintiff, was assaulted by two young men while on the premises of an apartment building he managed for the owner, defendant Kavian LLC. He sued the defendant and its two co-managing members (Mr. H.) for negligence and breach of contract. This blog post will focus solely on the negligence issue.

skyscraper
At trial, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in urging plaintiff to return to the property after an earlier disturbance and failing to provide a safe working environment. The trial court sustained demurrers by Mr. H., and granted defendant Kavian LLC’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed the latter ruling, and the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed.

On appeal, the plaintiff’s first argument was that he was never the employee of an independent contractor, and therefore was not barred from relief under Privette v. Superior Court (1993). The appeals court held that he was incorrect.

November 9, 2017

California Appeals Court Holds Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Appeal is Inadequate for Review

by Neumann Law Group

The plaintiff sued defendant Target for injuries due to the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff claimed she was cut by a plastic price tag holder that was sticking out into the aisle. The jury returned a verdict in the defendant’s favor, finding there was no dangerous condition. Finding that the appellate record and the plaintiff’s briefs were inadequate for appellate review, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed in this California premises liability case.

law book
At trial, the plaintiff’s husband testified that he and his wife were shopping at the Burbank Target in September 2010. As the plaintiff was pushing her cart through the shoe department, she cut her pinky finger on a price tag sign that was extending horizontally into the aisle. The plaintiff attempted to complete an incident report but was told by the defendant’s staff that there were no blank forms for her to complete. Her husband later called the store to report the incident and left a message, but his call was never returned.

The defendant’s employees testified that a guest would not be denied a guest incident report and that a report would have been completed by the defendant’s staff if an incident was reported and the guest did not wish to complete a form. There was no report completed by anyone for the alleged incident. They also testified to their procedures of sweeping for hazards in the store and stated that it was impossible for a price tag sign to extend horizontally into an aisle.

November 2, 2017

California College Student Injured in Las Vegas Massacre Files Suit

by Neumann Law Group

On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas strip. The gunman fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel. The shooting left 58 people dead and 546 injured, making it the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States. A California college student who was injured at the shooting recently filed suit against the concert promoter, the Mandalay Bay hotel owners, and the bump stock manufacturers. The case may have some relevance to certain California premises liability cases that may arise in these tragic situations.

Las Vegas
The lawsuit claims that MGM Resorts International, which owns both the hotel and the concert venue, failed to respond in a timely manner to the shooting of a hotel security officer who had gone to the 32nd floor to check on an alert from another guest room and who was shot six minutes before the massacre began. The lawsuit also questions why hotel staff failed to notice the gunman’s behavior prior to the mass shooting.

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that MGM Resorts and concert promoter Live Nation breached their duty of reasonable care and knew or should have known that it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach of their duty to keep the concert venue safe could result in serious or fatal injuries to concert attendees. Specifically, the gunman brought in 10 suitcases of weapons and over 500 rounds, and he barricaded himself in his room without any staff noticing.