Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In California, when it comes to determining responsibility in car accidents or personal injury cases, the state adheres to the doctrine of comparative negligence. This principle dictates that a plaintiff’s recovery in an accident or personal injury case can be reduced by the percentage of their own fault in the incident.

Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence

While some states utilize the concept of contributory negligence, where an individual who is even slightly at fault may not recover damages at all, California has adopted a more lenient stance. Comparative negligence, as applied in California, allows injured parties to recover damages even if they are partly to blame for their own injuries.

In the diverse and often complicated legal landscape of car accidents in California, understanding the principle of “Pure Comparative Negligence” is key. This rule governs how fault is determined and compensation awarded in the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident in the Golden State.

Understanding Pure Comparative Negligence

In California, the doctrine of Pure Comparative Negligence is used to determine who is financially responsible for damages stemming from a car accident. Under this law, each party involved in the accident can be assigned a percentage of fault. The compensation that a party is entitled to receive will then be reduced by that percentage.

California’s personal injury laws encompass various statutes that govern product liability, ensuring consumer protection and holding manufacturers accountable for defective products. One specific law that significantly impacts personal injury claims in California is the state’s strict liability rule in product liability cases. This article provides a comprehensive overview of this law, and its implications for personal injury cases, and highlights how a lawyer can assist you in navigating this complex legal landscape.

Understanding California’s Strict Liability in Product Liability Cases:

California imposes strict liability on manufacturers and distributors for injuries caused by defective products. This means that these parties can be held responsible for damages regardless of whether they were negligent or knew about the defect.

California’s personal injury laws encompass various statutes that govern premises liability, ensuring that property owners maintain safe environments for visitors. One specific law that significantly impacts personal injury claims in California is the state’s Premises Liability Law. This article provides a comprehensive overview of this law, and its implications for personal injury cases, and highlights how a lawyer can assist you in navigating this complex legal landscape.

Understanding California’s Premises Liability Law:

California’s Premises Liability Law holds property owners responsible for maintaining safe conditions on their premises. The law establishes a duty of care owed to individuals who visit or enter the property, imposing liability on property owners for injuries caused by hazardous conditions.

In California, understanding the legal aspects surrounding personal injury cases is crucial for safeguarding your rights and seeking compensation. One specific law that significantly impacts personal injury claims is California’s Statute of Limitations. This article provides a comprehensive overview of this law, and its implications for personal injury cases, and highlights the vital role that a personal injury lawyer plays in navigating this complex legal landscape.

Exploring California’s Statute of Limitations:

Exploring California’s Statute of Limitations provides a vital understanding of the time limits associated with filing a personal injury lawsuit in the state. This legal framework establishes a crucial deadline within which individuals must initiate legal action to seek compensation for their injuries.

In the realm of California car accident law, understanding the principles that govern liability and compensation is crucial for anyone involved in a collision. One specific law that has a significant impact on car accident cases in California is the doctrine of Comparative Negligence, which determines how liability and damages are apportioned among parties involved in an accident.

Understanding California’s Comparative Negligence Law

California follows the doctrine of Comparative Negligence, which is outlined in California Civil Code Section 1714. This law recognizes that more than one party may be at fault for an accident and allocates liability accordingly. It allows for the apportionment of fault and damages based on the percentage of negligence attributed to each party involved.

“Whatever you do, take care of your shoes.”

   . . .

<*)))=<

In the 1990s, the use of a neurovascular stent for a procedure call “stent-assisted coiling” was considered a breakthrough treatment for treating brain aneurysms. The medical device offered a non-surgical method to address weak spots in blood vessels in the brain. An aneurysm occurs when a weak point in a vessel allows blood to bulge out the vessel wall. If the aneurysm bursts, it can cause traumatic consequences, particularly when the aneurysm is located in the brain.

A non-stent assisted coiling treatment for an aneurysm involved running a stint from a patient’s leg up into the location of the aneurysm in the brain. The catheter would then inject a string of soft platinum into the aneurysm, which coils upon itself within the “bubble” of the aneurysm. After the platinum was fully deployed, the blood in the aneurysm clots along the coil and eventually fills the either aneurysm, such that is no longer poses the threat of rupture.

The procedure described above worked well, unless the aneurism had a “wide neck.” Where a normal aneurysm looks like a bubble stuck on the side of the vessel, a wide neck aneurysm looks more like a semi-circle. Instead of having a small weak spot in the vessel bulge out into a bubble, the wide neck variety involves a larger weak spot that expands the vessel in a distorted manner. Introducing the platinum coil into the aneurysm is not feasible, as the coil is too exposed to the blood flow and will not remain in place.