Personal Injury

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.

November 12, 2019

Growing safety concerns are taking a toll on foundering Juul Labs

by Neumann Law Group

Vaping-Cloud-300x225 In December of 2018, Altria, manufacturer of Marlboro products and one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, made a risky play and took a 35% interest in the vaping company Juul Labs at a cost of $12.8 billion. Over its three years of existence, Juul had climbed its way to become the dominant e-cigarette company, claiming 75% of the quickly emerging market.

On October 31, 2019, Altria cut the book value of its investment by $4.5 billion amid growing concerns about the safety of vaping. Governmental agencies have initiated investigations into several areas, including rampant use of vaping products by teenagers, concerns about health risks unique to vaping, and a string of deaths that some are attributing to vaping products. Juul has also found itself defending against several lawsuits, which are likely the opening salvo in a barrage of similar suits.

One lawsuit is a claim of whistleblower retaliation. Siddharth Breja, Juul’s former vice president of global finance, alleged the company had shipped over one million contaminated mint e-liquid pods to retailers. Breja alleges executive management refused to issue a recall despite his urging.

July 24, 2019

How California’s Comparative Negligence Law Helps Accident Victims Recover for Their Injuries

by Neumann Law Group

Photo credit: Shutterstock.com/
Jean Faucett

Many California car accidents are primarily caused by the negligence of one motorist. However, it is very common in accidents involving multiple defendants, for responsibility to rest with several parties. Under California car accident law, anyone injured in an accident can pursue a claim against any other party they believe to be responsible for their injuries, even if the accident victim is partially at fault. This is referred to as comparative negligence.

States across the country vary in how they determine which accident victims can recover for their injuries. Below are the most common types of laws:

May 9, 2019

California Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claim of Juror Misconduct

by Neumann Law Group

Photo credit: Shutterstock/ggw

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California car accident case discussing whether the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial based on juror misconduct when a juror failed to disclose that he had been named in two prior lawsuits as a defendant. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no misconduct, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant conceded liability, but disputed the causation, nature, and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the trial proceeded only on the issue of damages.

March 25, 2019

Liability in California Dog Attack Cases

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Victoria Antonova / Shutterstock.com

Under California personal injury law, the owner of a dog that bites or injures another person may be held liable for the injuries caused by their animal. However, the manner in which a California dog bite victim must go about in proving their case depends on the facts surrounding the accident.

There are two basic types of California dog bite cases, those brought under a theory of strict liability and those brought under the theory of negligence.

Strict Liability: Dog Bites Occurring in Public Places

California imposes strict liability on dog owners whose animals bite another person in a public place or in any other place that the victim is legally permitted to be. Importantly, this means that the dog bite victim does not need to show that the animal’s owner knew that their pet was dangerous or that the animal had attacked someone in the past.

September 14, 2018

California Supreme Court Hears Back Injury Case

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Kristiana Gankevych / Shutterstock.com

California has two different kinds of schemes for personal injury claims, depending on where you were injured. If you are injured at work, you will usually need to bring your claim through the workers’ compensation system. However, if you are injured during your leisure time, and your injuries were caused by the negligence of someone else, you will often be able to hold the wrongdoer accountable through the civil legal system through a tort claim. Typically, plaintiffs prefer to bring their claims under tort law because there is the potential for much greater damages to be awarded. The problem is that plaintiffs cannot bring a tort claim when workers’ compensation has been designated the exclusive remedy for the harm suffered. The California Supreme Court recently heard a case that addressed whether a specific kind of personal injury claim can be brought under a tort claim or whether it has to be funneled through the workers’ compensation system. This may all sound complicated – and it is- but a knowledgeable Southern California personal injury attorney can help you understand the best way to move your injury claim forward.

California Workers’ Compensation System

August 23, 2018

Yoga Injury Case Not Allowed to Move Forward Says California Appeals Court

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: ZephyrMedia / Shutterstock.com

A motion for summary judgment is granted when the judge believes that there are no issues of material fact between the parties and one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, summary judgment motions are granted when even if the facts are looked at in the light most favorable to the other party, it is still clear that one party should prevail. In this case, summary judgment was granted to the yoga studio because the plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that there was actual a triable issue here. The laws around personal injury can be complicated, which is why it is important to contact a knowledgeable California personal injury attorney if you are injured. They can help you to understand whether you have a case or not.

Facts of the Case

July 16, 2018

California Clarifies Statute of Limitations for In Utero Toxic Exposure Claims

by Neumann Law Group

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 11, 2018

California Court of Appeals Holds Employer Not Liable for Accident Injuries

by Neumann Law Group

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 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.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.

California Civil Code section 1714(a) establishes the general duty that each person must exercise reasonable care for the safety of others. The California Supreme Court has held that courts should create an exception to this rule only when supported by public policy.