Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

December 3, 2019

Who is responsible when a shooting victim seeks compensation for their injury?

rifle-with-smoke-200x300 Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about firearms, no one disputes the power and energy in a fired bullet. When a human is struck by a fired round, the consequences can be catastrophic. When someone injures another person by shooting them unlawfully, the criminal justice system can mete out appropriate punishment, but punishment alone does not make the victim whole. Moreover, where an individual is shot by accident, the criminal justice system many not engage judicial process at all.

Whether intentional or accidental, those suffering gunshot wounds may need to turn to a civil lawsuit in order to obtain compensation. However, questions remain about what legal theories are available and who can be held responsible?

If someone intentionally shoots another person, or if the shooter acts with reckless disregard for the safety of others when discharging a firearm, it can be a crime—except under certain circumstances, such as justified self-defense. A judge will typically order an individual convicted of unlawfully shooting pay restitution, together with the prescribed incarceration and fines. However, restitution may be limited to medical bills and other economic loss without taking pain and suffering into account. Under these circumstances, a civil lawsuit for the same shooting may be necessary to be fully compensated.

August 1, 2016

California Appeals Court Holds Plaintiff Has Standing to Sue Hotel That Charged Fee for Service Dog

by Neumann Law Group

The California Court of Appeals for the Second District recently reversed the lower court’s holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue a hotel that refused to rent a room to a parapalegic unless she paid a fee for her service dog. The appeals court held that the lower court erroneously sustained the defendants’ demurrers, incorrectly finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.The lawsuit arose from an incident that occurred at a hotel owned and managed by defendants Bruce and Alfred Yasmeh, American Property Management, and INE Capital Holdings. Plaintiffs John Flowers and Seth and Kody Messmer filed suit in November 2013 after visiting the hotel. Flowers is a parapalegic and uses a service dog. Osborne is Flowers’ wife, and the Messmers are Flowers’ stepsons. The plaintiffs alleged that they were refused to rent a hotel room unless they paid a non-refundable cleaning fee for the service dog. Hotel management allegedly demanded them to pay an additional $220 for the cleaning fee. (The hotel room itself was only $80.) The plaintiffs left the hotel without paying the fee.

July 14, 2016

Los Angeles Startup Faces Explosive Lawsuit from Co-founder

by Neumann Law Group

In a lawsuit filed on July 12 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Silicon Valley insider Shervin Pishevar was accused of mismanaging his latest startup, Hyperloop One, a company aiming to create a high-speed train.The lawsuit was filed by Brogan BamBrogan, who co-founded the Los Angeles-based startup with Pishevar in 2014, and three other former executives. He is suing Hyperloop One, Pishevar (the company’s executive chairman), and three others associated with the company. BamBrogan alleges that Hyperloop’s executives breached their fiduciary duty by placing their own interests above those of Hyperloop One. The causes of action include wrongful termination, breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault.

May 2, 2016

California Customers Sue Victoria’s Secret for Racial Profiling

by Neumann Law Group

Two Southern California residents are suing Victoria’s Secret for $4 million, alleging they were racially profiled at the clothing chain’s Beverly Center location. The women – Tammi Robinson and Shaunda McDaniel – allege negligence, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and various state law violations. Their lawyers filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The plaintiffs, the complaint alleges, were “shocked and humiliated” to be ejected from the store like criminals. The lawsuit further claims the store’s actions were indicative of a “pervasive racist sentiment,” in which black customers are routinely “treated as suspect.” Victoria’s Secret, on the other hand, claims that appreciating and supporting diversity are among the brand’s core values.