1300

by

The law in California clearly obliges property owners/occupiers to keep their properties “reasonably safe.” As part of that duty, the law requires property owners/occupiers to inspect their properties and ascertain the condition of those properties. If a dangerous condition exists that would have been discovered as a result of a reasonable inspection, then the property owner/occupier is required by the law to fix it or to warn users of the property of its existence. If the owner doesn’t, and a guest on the property is injured, then that may give the injured person the opportunity to obtain compensation through a premises liability lawsuit. To learn more about this and other legal options possibly available to you, make certain you to contact a knowledgeable California injury attorney.

While many premises liability cases are slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall accidents, those are not the only varieties. For example, take the case of C.S. The facts that led to C.S.’s lawsuit sound like something that might come from a Hollywood horror movie. C.S. was out on a Napa County golf course in June 2013, taking a lesson from one of the club’s instructors. The golfer was preparing for a shot on the fifth hole when a swarm of yellow jackets attacked her. The instructor tried to swat the insects away, to no avail. The pair ran the length of one and one-half football fields before the yellow jackets stopped chasing and attacking. All told, the golfer got stung in excess of 50 times.

C.S. was transported to a nearby fire station. On the way, she began losing consciousness. Paramedics met her outside and gave her a shot. One paramedic declared that C.S. had been “within fifteen seconds” of dying. She spent the night in a hospital ICU and missed five weeks of work.

Continue Reading

by

In any type of personal injury case, you must present several things in order to achieve a successful outcome and obtain the damages award you need. One of these items is proof that the person or entity that you sued had a legal duty toward you. When it comes to a duty, it is important to understand how such a duty can arise. Some people always have certain duties toward others, in accordance with established law. Other times, a person or entity can develop a duty based upon the actions they took. In many situations, an entity maybe liable not so much because they started out owing the plaintiff a duty but because once they undertook an action, they became legally duty-bound to do that act in a non-negligent manner (but failed to do so). If you have been injured and think it was the result of someone else’s negligence, be sure to consult an experienced California injury attorney.

As an example of how this can work and how an injured person can achieve a valuable result, there’s the case of E.Z., which was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. E.Z. was a 36-year-old woman taking her two daughters out for a walk one August day in 2016. The trio headed to San Francisco’s North Beach district and, specifically, to the playground at the historic Washington Square Park. The large park offers many benefits to guests, but unfortunately offered peril to this mom. As she and the children walked, a 50-foot pine tree shed a 100-pound branch. The branch fell several feet before crashing into E.Z. The mother suffered a fractured skull and a severed spinal cord. The severe injuries she suffered resulted in permanent paralysis from the waist down, the Chronicle reported.

In E.Z.’s case, she asserted that the city and county were negligent in the pruning and maintenance of the park’s trees. Specifically, she asserted that the method of pruning the city and county used tended to lead to “large, weakly attached branches” growing back, according to the report. She had evidence that there were problems with similar large falling branches in 2008. In 2010, an assessment concluded that the parks department only took action after reports from the public, and never engaged in pro-active maintenance. All that, along with E.Z.’s other evidence, was enough to build a viable case of negligence against the city and county.

Continue Reading

by

If you watch enough TV and movies, you’ve probably seen a certain character. That character is the person who is involved in an auto accident and, in the immediate aftermath, is walking and talking and seemingly unaffected by the crash, only to re-emerge several days or weeks later sporting a gigantic neck brace. This may make for good comedy but it isn’t very realistic at all. The truth is that people may suffer injuries in auto accidents, including very serious ones, and not notice any symptoms for days or even weeks after the accident. Just because you did not show symptoms right away or you declined treatment at the scene doesn’t mean that you weren’t hurt and aren’t entitled to compensation. To learn more about your options for recovering damages, talk to an experienced San Mateo injury attorney.

A recent car crash case (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2015-00037880) from Southern California is a good example. S.K. was an 18-year-old driver who was driving through Carlsbad. As he approached an intersection, his light was red. When the traffic signal turned green in his direction, he advanced forward. As he passed through the intersection, a cement dump truck broadsided the teen’s Nissan car.

At the scene, S.K. refused an offer of treatment. There are many reasons why an injured driver or passenger might say that he is “OK” and refuse treatment at the scene of an accident, even if he is injured. An injury, potentially even a serious one, can be masked in various ways. Especially for a young driver, there might be a very massive “dump” of adrenaline experienced as a result of the shock and stress of the accident. That uptick of adrenaline can sometimes mute pain receptors and make one think that they are not in pain, even though a significant injury has taken place.

Continue Reading

by

As a motorcyclist, you face many unique risks on the road. If you are injured due to the negligence of someone driving a large vehicle like a commercial truck, the results can be catastrophic or even tragic. When that happens, you may be able to pursue a case against not only the driver but also the commercial entity that owned the truck and hired the driver. Whether it involves pursuing a claim of vicarious liability or direct liability against the business, this part of your case can be essential to getting the full and fair recovery you need for your extreme injury case. To make sure you are doing everything you should to be get the recovery you deserve, be sure to reach out to a knowledgeable San Mateo injury attorney.

J.L. was a motorcyclist who unfortunately found himself in such a circumstance. As the Los Angeles Times reported, J.L. was a captain in the Air Force who was driving his motorcycle through a Los Angeles suburb when he suffered his serious accident. J.L.’s traffic light was red, so he was stopped at the intersection. The vehicle immediately behind J.L., a large gas utility truck, didn’t stop. The truck crashed into J.L.’s motorcycle and the bike (and biker) became wedged beneath the truck. The truck took off, allegedly in an attempt to escape the scene and get on the freeway, meaning that J.L. was dragged for more than 400 feet before onlookers forced the truck driver to stop his vehicle, according to the Times report.

J.L.’s injuries were severe. He lost roughly 40% of his blood and incurred an injury to his right leg so serious that, in additional to major disfigurement, amputation of his leg will, according to his attorneys, remain a threat for the rest of his life. Overall, the captain’s orthopedic and vascular injuries caused the man to remain hospitalized for one month and undergo numerous surgeries, the report indicated.

Continue Reading

by

In many circumstances, including intersection accidents, if a driver who has the right of way is involved in an accident with a driver who was required to yield the right of way but did not, then the first driver would have a strong case for a civil liability and an award of damages. Typically, the driver who failed to yield would be considered negligent in her operation of her vehicle and would be liable for the injuries and other damages that she caused to the driver with whom she collided.

That, however, is not a certainty, and you should be prepared to litigate your case diligently, even if you were clearly hurt and clearly had the right of way. A driver who might appear to have had the right of way, and be entitled to an award of damages, might not succeed if she also violated the rules of the road, such as by speeding. In that regard, some defendants may try to defeat your case by alleging you committed some violation of the rules of the road and that violation was the real cause of the accident. To protect yourself and your case, be sure you have the skill and knowledge of an experienced California injury attorney on your side.

As an example of this type of case, there’s the injury accident of a woman named J.B. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 610177) J.B. was driving across westbound Franklin Avenue in Hollywood near the Magic Castle. H.A. had been traveling eastbound but was stopped while waiting to make a left turn into the driveway of the Magic Castle. Seeing what she thought was an opportunity to get to the driveway, H.A. initiated her left turn. Unfortunately, that put her in the path of J.B. and the vehicles collided.

Continue Reading

by

In any type of personal injury case, you need proof that (1) the defendant’s negligence harmed you and (2) the harm caused you to suffer compensable damages. The latter of these two is called causation. When it comes to the element of causation, some cases may require more proof than others. If you come into court with a medical history that includes pre-existing conditions, especially a history of injury to the same part of your body that was hurt in your auto accident, your opponent will inevitably argue that the harm you are currently dealing with is not the result of your accident, but rather the result of your pre-existing condition. To make sure you don’t get snared by this “pre-existing condition” trap, you need clear proof that your overall well-being, while not perfect, clearly was far better before the accident and became markedly worse immediately after the accident and as a result of the accident. To make sure you have the evidence you need to accomplish these ends, be sure you have a skilled California injury attorney representing you.

D.C.’s case (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00874301) was one that included this type of issue related to causation. D.C., a senior chief petty officer in the U.S. Navy, was visiting family in southern California when his rear-end accident occurred. According to the petty officer, he was driving near Anaheim when traffic slowed ahead of him. He slowed too, but the vehicle behind him hit his rental car on the left rear side. The rear driver allegedly was going about 20-30 mph when the vehicles collided.

Before the accident, the petty officer allegedly had already experienced some problems with his back. Many years before, the petty officer had suffered a traumatic injury to his back and that had left him with ongoing back pain, which existed at manageable levels. According to the petty officer, his ongoing degree of limitation from the injury was so small that the military had cleared him for full duty and he had served in a forward position in Afghanistan just one year before the accident. That assignment included wearing a heavy helmet and toting gear that weighed 50+ pounds, according to the petty officer.

Continue Reading

by

Every motorcyclist knows that there are certain dangers that go along with getting on the road in a motorcycle. Motorcyclists must contend with car and truck drivers who, too often, fail to keep a lookout for motorcycles on the road, and they face the risk of very serious harm if they are in an accident. When that happens, motorcyclists’ cases require unique knowledge and keen legal skills to get the results a motorcyclist needs. To give yourself the best chance of success, be sure to contact an experienced San Mateo motorcycle injury attorney about your accident.

Earlier this year, The Mercury News reported on some very good news for motorcyclists. Statistics showed that the number of fatal motorcycle accidents in California has declined dramatically. In 2016, 586 bikers lost their lives due to accidents on California roads. In 2017, that number dipped to 406. California’s nearly 30% reduction was well ahead of the national average, which saw a dip of 5.6% across the same period.

There are several factors that have influenced this downward trend, according to the report. One relates to law enforcement, where CHP has begun engaging in extra patrols every spring and summer. These patrols focus on speeding, tailgating, improper lane changes and unsafe turns.

Continue Reading

by

In any injury case, the area or areas that will be the key that both sides focus upon can vary from case to case. Sometimes, the two sides will contest liability, with the defense counsel arguing that the defendant was not to blame at all for causing the injury-causing accident. Other times, both sides agree the defendant is liable. That, however, does not automatically mean the case itself is “open and shut.” The two sides may battle extensively over the amount of damages that the injured plaintiff should receive. In any case where the amount of damages is a major issue, it is extremely important to have “done your homework” and collected extensive evidence to support your damages claim. To make sure that you are accumulating the right amount and right type of evidence you need to get the outcome you deserve, be sure you put the skill of a knowledgeable San Mateo injury attorney on your side.

J.L.’s case (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1613468) was one where the battle centered solely on damages. J.L. was a nursing student in southern California who, while driving through an intersection in Redlands, allegedly got cut off by a a semi truck. According to the student’s lawsuit, she was unable to avoid contact and the result was a collision between the car and the semi. The student’s airbags deployed and the impact fractured her right wrist, which was her dominant arm. The student underwent multiple surgeries, and suffered an infection that left her with a permanent scar . She also testified that she would need total fusion surgery performed on that wrist as part of her treatment in the future.

The trucking company admitted that its driver was liable for causing the accident.

Continue Reading

by

Premises liability lawsuits cases can include slip-and-fall accidents, trip-and-fall accidents and several other varieties of injuries suffered while a person was on the property of someone else. In many circumstances, slip-and-fall accidents may take place because the operator of a commercial business fails to keep its floors sufficiently clean. As a result, when you pursue a slip-and-fall injury accident case against a merchant, you have to show that the business’ policies and practices it had in place for inspecting and cleaning its floors were not reasonable. If you’ve suffered an injury in a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall accident in Northern California, you should contact an experienced San Mateo injury attorney to provide you with representation in your case.

M.J. was a shopper injured in a slip-and-fall accident. M.J. was shopping at a discount supermarket when she allegedly slipped and fell due to a patch of liquid on the floor of the store. As a result, she sued the supermarket.

In this situation, as with many accident cases, expert witnesses can be an important component of the case. These individuals can often provide powerful evidence that, if the court finds it persuasive, will go a long way toward influencing the outcome. In M.J.’s case, the supermarket provided an expert who testified that the merchant’s system – which involved sweeping the floor once an hour – was a reasonable method for dealing with hazards like spilled liquids. M.J. also had an expert. The shopper’s expert testified that the store’s practices were not adequate and, on top of that, the store’s floor was unreasonably slippery when wet.

Continue Reading

by

In any type of personal injury circumstance, there are several things of which you must be aware, and several “landmines” that you must be careful to avoid as they can destroy your case. Any time you are injured, an essential part of the process is identifying the person or entity responsible. However, it is equally important to be certain the party you identified is one from which you can obtain compensation. There are various statutes that state that, in certain situations, particular entities are completely immune from liability, meaning that you cannot obtain a judgment against them and cannot obtain the compensation you need from them. If you’ve suffered an injury in an accident in Northern California, you should be sure to retain an experienced California injury attorney to represent you and give your side the strong advocate you need.

Some injury cases can arise from relatively unusual circumstances. Just because your accident is not typical, don’t mistake that to mean that you cannot sue and cannot win an award of damages. Consider the case of M.A. M.A. was a member of her college’s interscholastic beach volleyball team who was hurt while competing. Her team was playing in a tournament at a college in San Diego County when M.A’s knee allegedly struck a rock in the sand. The impact of the woman’s knee with the rock caused her to suffer an injury, according to her complaint. The woman sued the college that hosted the tournament for negligence and premises liability. She later removed the premises liability claim and added one for “dangerous condition of public property.” The college asked the trial judge to throw out the case based upon something known as “field trips and excursions” immunity.

The trial judge agreed with the college that the statutory immunity for field trips and excursions applied to the woman’s circumstances, meaning that the case must be dismissed. The appeals court, however, explained that this was incorrect. The appeals court made it very clear that the statutory immunity extended to field trips and excursions did not apply to situations where a member of a visiting team is injured during an intercollegiate athletic event. When an institution provides the facilities to be used in the athletic event, its duty to provide safe facilities extends to all players in the event, not just those who are students of the host school.

Continue Reading