Published on:

Introduction

Navigating the aftermath of a car accident in California can be a daunting journey filled with complex legal, medical, and insurance challenges. With the bustling highways and streets across cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, the state sees a significant number of vehicular accidents each year. These incidents range from minor fender benders to catastrophic collisions, leaving many to deal with severe injuries, financial burdens, and emotional trauma. This post aims to underscore the importance of securing a skilled accident attorney to guide victims through these challenging times, ensuring they receive the justice and compensation they deserve.

Understanding California’s Traffic Laws and Legal System

Published on:

Service companies, such as an HVAC company or roofing company, often complete projects on-site at residential or commercial buildings. The working conditions in different homes can be unknown or hazardous. Technicians receive safety training to prepare for whatever may come their way, but accidents still happen. When a technician gets hurt while performing a service at a home, is the homeowner or the small business owner responsible for the damages?

A recent case out of Los Angeles put a spotlight on this very topic, and it set a precedent for the courts that can inform us of what to expect if we experience a similar incident.

Learn more about who is responsible when a technician is injured at a client’s home.

Published on:

In California, plaintiffs have the burden of proving all of the elements of negligence when they file personal injury lawsuits. This includes presenting evidence that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries and resulting losses. It is often necessary to present expert witness testimony to prove causation. When a defendant objects to a plaintiff’s witness being qualified to testify as an expert, the court must evaluate the witness’s testimony under the substantial factors standard. In Brancati v. Cachuma Village, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B321616, the California Court of Appeal considered whether a trial court erred when it found that a plaintiff’s proposed expert witness was not qualified to testify about causation.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dana Brancati signed a month-to-month apartment lease with Cachuma Village, Inc. in 2012 and continued to live there from April 2012 to April 2016. While she lived there, she complained to her landlord about mold in her apartment and the company’s failure to remediate the issue. In 2016, Insight Environmental assessed Brancati’s apartment and found high levels of several species of toxic mold on her premises. She then filed a lawsuit against Chachuma Village, alleging the company had breached the warranty of habitability, constructively evicted her, caused her personal injuries, and committed fraud. Brancati attributed her respiratory illnesses to the toxic mold and claimed $500,000 in damages.

Published on:

California’s vast roadways are guided by the California Vehicle Code (CVC), which sets the standards for how drivers should behave on the road. Let’s dive deeper into some essential sections of the CVC to better understand California’s traffic laws.

1. Cell Phones and Distracted Driving

  • Hands-free Only: Per CVC §23123, drivers are prohibited from holding and using a cell phone unless it’s set up for hands-free use. This includes activities like texting and calling.
Published on:

In California, bars, restaurants, and other establishments that are open to the public owe a duty of care to patrons to keep them reasonably safe and free from danger. This includes a duty to keep customers safe from other, potentially dangerous customers. In

Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge Inc., Ca. Ct. App. Case No. G061255, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the duty a bar owed to a guest who was stabbed to death in a fight an hour after he left the bar when the original fight began inside of the bar.

Factual and Procedural Background

Published on:

Employees who are injured at work generally only have the right to recover compensation through workers’ compensation instead of by filing lawsuits against their employers. However, there are a few narrow exceptions that might allow an injured worker to step outside of the workers’ compensation system and file a lawsuit against their employer. In Jimenez v. Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B322732, the Court of Appeal considered whether two exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule applied in a case involving a man who was seriously injured and subsequently died in a pedestrian accident that happened while he was on a short break from work.

Factual and Procedural Background

Timoteo Martinez Ildefonso was employed by a Whole Foods market owned by parent company Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. in Venice, California. Martinez Ildefonso took a 15-minute break, during which he briefly walked off-site. When returning to the store, Martinez Ildefonso crossed a busy road in a crosswalk and was struck by a pickup truck. Following the accident, he walked back to the store. He was given an ice pack by his employer and was asked to fill out a form. He was then given a ride home, and he died several hours later at home from his injuries.

Published on:

Californians who contract diseases caused by exposures to toxins might develop permanently disabling conditions. When those illnesses were caused by someone else’s negligence, the victims are entitled to pursue damages for their losses. In Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios LLC, et. al., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. F083502, the Court of Appeal evaluated a case to determine whether a plaintiff presented enough evidence to establish causation, a required element of a tort claim in California.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dale Beebe was employed by Braaten Electric, Inc. as an electrical foreman. In 2011, Potential Design, Inc., which was the general contractor on a construction project for two silos for Wonderful Pistachios and Almonds LLC hired Braaten Electric as a subcontractor to complete electrical work, including at one silo under construction in Firebaugh. Beebe worked at the Firebraugh site during two extended phases of the project, including from Jan. 13, 2012, to Dec. 20, 2012, and again from Sept. 12, 2013, to Sept. 26, 2014. During the time Beebe worked in the Firebaugh facility, he lived on the property in his recreational vehicle.

Published on:

In California, people and entities who own or are in control of property are legally obligated to maintain it in a reasonably safe condition to prevent lawfully present parties from suffering foreseeable injuries from known dangers that might be present. This duty extends both to the owners of the property and those who control it, including businesses and private property owners. Apartment and condominium tenants might have a duty to warn visitors about dangerous conditions they know about within their premises but might not have a legal duty to maintain or warn common areas of the property over which they have no control.

In Moses v. Roger-McKeever, Cal. Ct. App. Case. No. A164405, the California Court of Appeal considered whether a condominium tenant had a legal duty to warn a visitor about the conditions of a stairwell and entryway leading to her condominium and/or to maintain and repair the allegedly dangerous condition that existed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Published on:

California-Car-Accident-AttorneysDriving on California’s highways can be an exhilarating experience, but it can also be very dangerous. Every year, there are thousands of traffic accidents in the Golden State, many of which result in serious injuries and even death. In this article, we’ll take a look at the latest traffic accident statistics in California for 2022.

Overview

According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), there were 216,366 traffic accidents in the state in 2022, which resulted in 3,854 fatalities and 165,978 injuries. This represents a decrease of 6.5% in the number of accidents, a decrease of 5.2% in the number of fatalities, and a decrease of 7.3% in the number of injuries, compared to the previous year.

Published on:

bird-scooter-accident-attorneysCalifornia property owners owe a legal duty to lawfully present visitors to protect them from dangerous conditions that they know about or reasonably should know about to prevent foreseeable injuries. When a property owner violates its legal duty, it can be liable to pay damages to a victim who is injured as a result. In Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B316374, the Court of Appeal considered whether Bird Rides, Inc., the app company behind Bird Scooters, owed a duty of care to a woman who suffered serious injuries when she tripped and fell over a scooter that had been parked in violation of the company’s permit with the City of Los Angeles.

Factual and Procedural Background

Bird Rides, Inc. is an app company that people can use to rent electric scooters to quickly get around Los Angeles. The company launched its scooter rental service in L.A. in 2017 and parked numerous scooters at docking stations located throughout the downtown areas. At the time it applied for a permit, Bird agreed to several rules set by the city, including not allowing its scooters to be parked within 25 feet of a street corner with a single pedestrian ramp. The company also agreed to have staff available 24 hours per day to remove scooters in emergencies and between 7 am to 10 pm to re-park scooters at docking stations that had been left away from them. Since Bird’s system is dockless, the company can locate and track its scooters throughout the city, and riders are told that they can leave them anywhere.

Contact Information