Published on:

San-Bernardino-Truck-Accident-LawyerWhen truck drivers cause accidents in California, the trucking companies often aggressively defend against personal injury claims. They may dispute the liability of their drivers outright or try to argue the comparative negligence of the victims. The defense attorneys may go to great lengths in order to try to argue that the injuries that the victims suffered are not as severe as they claim, including searching through social media posts. In Takemura v. Pacific Tank Lines, San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1516387, the trucking company tried to place all of the blame on the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff passenger was riding in an effort to avoid liability. Experienced truck accident lawyers in Los Angeles understand the types of tactics that trucking companies and insurance carriers use and may be able to more effectively counter them.

Factual background of the case

The plaintiff, Akiko Takemura, was a 28-year-old woman who was riding as a front-seat passenger in a Prius that was being driven by CJ Taso while the pair was traveling to Las Vegas. While they were traveling, the Prius ran out of gas. Taso attempted to pull the vehicle safely off the freeway when the car was struck from behind by a gas-tanker truck. Takemura suffered serious injuries, including fractured vertebrae in her back and neck. She was forced to remain in the hospital for two months after the accident.

Published on:

automatic-gate-accident-attorney-los-angelesAutomatic gate accidents in Los Angeles can cause serious injuries or deaths. In these types of cases, there are several parties that might be liable. The property owners or lessors may be responsible if they negligently retain or repair the gates or if the knew or should have known about an existing defect and failed to repair it. If the automatic gate failed because of a defective part, the part’s manufacturer may be liable to pay damages. Finally, people who are injured in gate accidents may also share liability. In Park v. Oh, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC569323, the plaintiff and the property owner shared liability.

Factual background of the case

Around 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 13, 2013, Chon Ho Park drove down the driveway of his apartment complex. As he drew near to an automatic gate, he noticed that it was working improperly. Oh watched the gate as it opened and closed multiple times and called his landlord to ask what he should do. His landlord told him to turn the switch on the automatic gate to the off position so that the landlord could inspect it later on during the day. Park looked for the switch but could not see it. He walked around to the outside of the gate to look for it. The switch was located inside of the motor’s exterior plastic housing. While Park stayed on the phone with his landlord, he reached through some metal bars in order to try to turn the switch off. When he did, the gate closed on his wrist and arm, breaking them. Park filed a lawsuit against his landlord alleging that the landlord had negligently maintained the gate.

Published on:

mcdonalds-hot-coffee-caseMost people have heard about the McDonald’s coffee case and might have misconceptions about it. The case, Liebeck v. McDonald’s, in which a 79-year-old woman ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee in a drive-through and then burned herself by spilling it garnered national attention. The case is still the subject of debate about whether or not the claim was frivolous. Many people view the case as the classic example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts show that it was not.

Factual Background

On Feb. 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck was a passenger in her grandson’s vehicle. The pair pulled into the McDonald’s drive-through, and Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee. Her grandson then pulled into a parking space so that she could add cream and sugar to it. When she did, she spilled some of the coffee onto her lap. Since she was wearing cotton pants, the coffee caused her third-degree burns to her thighs and her butt.

Published on:

pedestrian-accident-injury-CaliforniaEmployers may be liable for the negligence of their employees when their employees injure others during the course and scope of their employment. Employers hold vicarious liability for the negligent acts of their employees while they are acting in the course and scope of their jobs. In Jay H. et al. v. John Keith Bullard, Waterfront Enterprises, Inc., dba Newport Landing Restaurant and Oyster Bar, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2014-00718428-CU-PA-CJC, the limits of the employer’s vicarious liability were explored.

Factual background

On March 6, 2014, at 7:30 p.m. the defendant, Jon Bullard, was headed home after finishing his shift at the restaurant that he managed. He was the manager of the Newport Landing Restaurant and Oyster Bar, which was owned by Waterfront Enterprises. When he reached the intersection of Thalia Drive and the Pacific Coast Highway, Bullard pulled into the middle of the intersection in order to make a left turn. While he waited for the traffic heading in the opposite direction to clear, the traffic light turned yellow and then red. He proceeded with his left turn and struck some pedestrians who were crossing the street in the crosswalk. Bullard pulled over and called 911. Both of the pedestrians had been knocked down by his truck. The plaintiffs had to go to the hospital by ambulance for treatment.

Published on:

Brain-Injury-Attorney-CaliforniaWhat are coup and contrecoup brain injuries? Head injuries can be some of the most devastating types of injuries that people might suffer in California. Traumatic events that injure the head may cause coup and contrecoup brain injuries. These types of injuries may cause lifelong disability or lead to death. If you or your loved one has suffered a coup or contrecoup brain injury because of the negligent or wrongful acts of other people or entities, you might want to seek help from an experienced brain injury lawyer in Los Angeles.

Overview of a Coup and Contrecoup Brain Injury

Blows to the head may cause brain contusions, which are bruises to the brain. A coup brain injury happens on the side of the head that was hit while a contrecoup injury occurs to the brain on the opposite side of the impact. These injuries often happen together when a forceful blow causes the brain to collide into the skull, causing a traumatic brain injury. Contrecoup injuries may happen in motor vehicle accidents sometimes result in diffuse axonal traumatic brain injury, leading to permanent disabilities.

Published on:

work-accident-fatality-lawyer-CaliforniaWorkplace deaths from industrial accidents is on the Rise in the U.S. according to recent studies.  Most Californians do not go to their jobs with the idea that they could be injured or killed at their workplaces. Unfortunately, many people suffer serious injuries or fatalities while they are working on the job each year. Recent data shows that the number of workplace fatalities across industry sectors sharply increased from 2015 to 2016. If you have lost your loved one in a workplace accident, it is important that you speak to an experienced Los Angeles personal injury attorney for help.

Workplace fatality statistics

According to the Census of 2016 Fatal Occupational Injuries Report that was released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5,190 people were killed while they were working on the job during the year. The number of fatalities increased by 7 percent over the number of workers who were killed in 2015. The fatality rate increased from 3.4 deaths per 100,000 workers to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 workers.

Published on:

riding-motorcycle-nightIn California, property owners have a duty to warn patrons of unsafe conditions that exist on their properties. If there is a hazardous condition that exists that the property owners are aware of, they also must repair the condition so that visitors remain safe. In a recent case that was decided in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. SC112366, these duties that are owed were illustrated. People who have suffered serious injuries because of the negligence of property owners might want to talk to an experienced premises liability lawyer in Los Angeles.

Factual background of the case

On March 6, 2011, a tourist from Oklahoma named Terry Turner ate at Geoffrey’s restaurant, which is located in Malibu. After he finished eating, he tried to turn left onto PCH. PCH is a one-way road in front of Geoffrey’s that has a median to divide traffic that is headed in the opposite direction. When Turner turned left, he was headed directly into oncoming traffic. A 41-year-old man named Joseph Annocki Jr. was riding his motorcycle on PCH. He tried to avoid Turner’s vehicle, lost control of his motorcycle and fell off of it. He was killed as a result. Turner’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Turner, Caltrans and Petersen Enterprises LLC, the parent company of Geoffrey’s Malibu under theories of negligence and premises liability.

Published on:

batting-cage-accidentProperty owners and operators in California owe duties of care to protect people who are legally present on their properties from dangerous conditions. Property owners must either know about the existence of the hazardous condition or should know about it for liability to attach. They must take steps to correct hazards about which they know or should have known and to warn visitors to their property about their existence. In Lefebvre v. NC Valley Baseball, LLC, Stanislaus County Superior Court No. 2019247, the court considered the concepts of notice and of assumption of the risk in a case involving a man who was injured at a batting cage by a baseball.

Factual background of the case

Craig Lefebvre was a 23-year-old coach for a team from NC Valley Baseball, LLC. On Jan. 21, 2016, Lefebvre was getting ready to leave the batting cage location in Modesto when he was stopped by a parent to talk. As Lefebvre stopped on the walkway between two of the batting areas, a foul ball flew through the protective netting and struck him in the groin.

Published on:

Property owners owe a duty of care to people who are lawfully present on their premises to prevent injuries from existing hazards by correcting them if they know or should know about the dangers. This duty does not extend to public streets that abut the properties, however. In a recent case, the California Supreme Court examined whether or not a property owner who owned a parking lot across the street from the primary property owed a duty of care to help people to cross the street in order to prevent injuries.

Issue: Whether a property owner owes a duty of care to invitees to prevent injury when they cross over a public street from a privately owned parking lot to the owner’s premises

Grace Family Church is located in Sacramento County in an unincorporated area along a five-lane street named Marconi Street. There was an intersection that was located between 50 to 100 feet east of the church that did not have a marked crosswalk. There were not any other crosswalks across the street in the vicinity. The church used a private swim school’s parking lot as an overflow lot by agreement with the swim school.

Published on:

school-bus-accident-injuryA tragic case in San Bernardino County that involved a six-year-old girl who was struck by a car while crossing the street to catch her school bus demonstrates several things. Isabella Escamilla Sanchez, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Carina Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino, a public entity; City of Highland, a public entity; et al., San Bernardino Superior Court, case no. 1309504, shows that accepted practices are not necessarily safe. The case also demonstrates how notice can affect the outcome of litigation and the vicarious liability that employers have when their employees’ negligence result in injuries to others.

Factual background

On Oct. 3, 2012, Isabella Escamilla Sanchez, a six-year-old, attempted to catch her school bus by crossing the street at midblock. She was struck by an oncoming Subaru Impreza and suffered numerous injuries, including a traumatic brain injury that left her with lifelong disabilities requiring round-the-clock nursing care. Her family filed a lawsuit against the Durham School Services because the drivers failed to report mid-street crossings by children in violation of their own policies.

Contact Information