California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: September 4, 2014

PG&E Fined $1.4 Billion for Deadly Gas Explosion

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has issued a fine of $1.4 Billion against Pacific Gas & Electric, a California Utility Provider for the gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno California that killed 8 people including a mother and her 13 year old daughter. The explosion engulfed an entire suburban neighborhood in flames. The fine is believed to be the largest ever issued by the CPUC, the CA administrative agency charged with regulating commercial utility providers. It follows a prior order for PG&E to pay over $600 Million to repair and upgrade the gas pipelines. The decision is expected to be appealed.

The facts of this incident are particularly egregious in that the explosion was apparently caused by a faulty weld in a pipe which the utility company had previously reported as “smooth and unwelded.” After significant investigation, the CPUC and federal authorities determined that PG&E was derelict in their duties to maintain the pipes in a safe condition for delivery of natural gas and that they failed to shut off the gas for approximately 95 minutes after the initial blast.

The explosion has prompted numerous wrongful death lawsuits filed. The attorneys representing the victims have alleged and are conducting discovery into the prior lapses of safety procedures that led up to this tragic incident. One such lawsuit alleges that, ““PG&E had knowledge of this pipeline’s defective condition [citing over 411 prior citations for lapses in safety] but put profits ahead of public safety.” (See here).

Published on: August 21, 2014

How does California Law define Elder Abuse?

by Steven M. Sweat

According to the governmental statistics compiled and studies conducted by the California Department of Aging, the population of the Golden State over the age of 60 (considered “elderly”) and over the age of 85 has steadily increased and is expected to continue increasing over the next several decades. In fact, Cal. is expected to have a 112% increase in their older citizens between 1990 and 2020, according to statistical data. While medical advances and other factors have increased both life expectancy and quality of life for older Californians, the fact still remains that, at some point in time, most if not all elderly persons will need the assistance of either a home caregiver or to become a resident in a long term care nursing home or assisted living facility. While the vast majority of these health care providers provide quality and caring service, acts of negligence and even intentional abuse of the elder population can and still do happen with too much frequency. This is why the laws of the State of California have long provided for protection of the elderly through regulation and enforcement of strict guidelines for elder care workers and facilities and through civil remedies for monetary damages for the abuse of the elderly.

Definition of Elder Abuse Under CA law:

Elder abuse is defined as physical, emotional and/or financial abuse of any adult over the age of 65 under California Welfare and Institutions Code 15600 and following. Depending upon the type of abuse claimed, the elements include the following:

Published on: June 3, 2014

Dodger Stadium Negligent Security Trial Begins in Los Angeles

by Steven M. Sweat

The trial of Brian Stow vs. the Los Angeles Dodgers began last week in L.A. Almost three years ago, Mr. Stow was severely beaten in the parking lot after a game between the Dodgers and the Giants. Two assailants, Marvin Norwood and Louie Sanchez, have long since pleaded guilty to the beating and have been sentenced to prison for the attack, which left Mr. Stow with permanent brain damage. The civil suit alleges that the Dodgers organization, through their former owner, Frank McCourt, were negligent in the security operations of the stadium and should be held accountable, at least in part, for the personal injuries sustained by the beating victim. The plaintiff is seeking approximately $52 Million in damages under theories of civil liability for negligence, specifically, premises liability and negligent hiring/retention/training of security personnel.

What is the standard for holding a business responsible for criminal conduct on their property in CA?

In order for an injured person to hold a property owner responsible for their bodily harm, a plaintiff must prove the following four things:

Published on: May 23, 2014

Paul Walker Car Crash Prompts Lawsuit Against Porsche

by Steven M. Sweat

paul walker death, california speeding laws, california auto accidents, los angeles car wrecks

Paul Walker dies in fatal car wreck in Los Angeles County California.

The Paul Walker car crash near Los Angeles last year has prompted a lawsuit against Porsche of North America. The lawsuit alleges various causes of action including negligence and strict products liability. (For full copy of complaint via PDF, click here). The legal action is brought by one of the survivors of Paul Rodas (the driver at the wheel at the time of the crash who was a professional race car driver). The suit also alleges false advertising claims and related violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

What does a plaintiff have to prove in an alleged product design defect claim in California?

Published on: May 6, 2014

Can A Delivery Truck Driver Be Liable for Negligent Parking

by Steven M. Sweat

Can a delivery truck driver be liable for negligent parking under the laws of the State of California? This was the question presented recently to the California Supreme Court in the matter of Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Company 179, Cal.App.4th 1.

Facts of the Case: A semi truck operator employed by Ralph’s Grocery Company pulled off the freeway in San Bernardino California to eat his lunch. He parked his vehicle in a dirt area alongside the interstate highway. He testified that he routinely parked in that spot to eat his lunch. At the request of the California Highway Patrol, CalTrans had previously placed an “Emergency Parking Only” sign near the area as it had become a spot where truckers were pulling off and stopping for non-emergency reasons. Plaintiff was traveling at a high rate of speed and inexplicably lost control of his vehicle and slammed into the rear of the tractor trailer and was instantly killed. There was no indication that the driver was intoxicated prior to the crash and the best speculation was that he may have fallen asleep at the wheel or had some medical condition that caused him to swerve off the road and collide with the semi truck.

Result of the Jury Trial: The jury found that the plaintiff was 90 percent at fault for the accident but, found that the Ralph’s truck driver and (vicariously) Ralph’s Grocer Company was 10 percent at fault for parking the truck in an emergency stopping area without exigent circumstances warranting such a stop. The defendant, Ralph’s, brought a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (so-called “JNOV”). The trial judge granted the motion and nullified the jury verdict for wrongful death in favor of plaintiff’s surviving heirs.

Published on: April 28, 2014

Epidemic of Hit and Run Accidents in Los Angeles and How to Protect Yourself

by Steven M. Sweat

hit and run, accidents, los angeles, Los Angeles personal injury attorney

Hit and Run Accidents in Los Angeles

The level of hit and run accidents in Los Angeles has now reached epidemic proportions according to various reports.( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/hit-and-run-crashes-los-angeles/3452699/ ).

The statistics are frightening:

Published on: April 8, 2014

Why “Tort Reform” Is Not Supported By Either Liberal or Conservative Values

by Steven M. Sweat

As an American, I am proud of our country’s heritage which embraces a broad spectrum of ideals including what are traditionally known as “liberal” or “progressive” values as well as “conservative” values. I think both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were great leaders in their own right who probably embody these two traditions the best. While it is apparent from the last few elections that Americans seem to be embracing many centrist views as well, there are many who, at least in part, have a stronger ideological lean towards what they believe to be “liberal” or “conservative” values. In my opinion, no matter where you come down on the political spectrum, the notions promoted by “tort reformers” are not supported when you truly understand what this “reform” movement is all about.

What is “Tort Reform”?

Our American system of jurisprudence developed from Anglo-Saxon law over hundreds of years. As I’ve blogged about before (see here) , our founding fathers fully supported the right of the individual to redress through the civil justice system by enacting the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. From colonial days until now, this system has continued to develop to allow individuals and classes of persons who have been harmed by wrongdoing or negligence (i.e. “torts”) to seek monetary compensation through a civil jury trial. What “tort reform” aims to do is to issue, by government decree, that individuals and classes of people should not be able to bring civil actions in certain instances and/or should be limited in the amount they are able to recover by a predetermined structure as opposed to the judgment rendered by a jury of their peers. It comes in many forms but, includes proposals to limit class action lawsuits, to shorten the statute of limitations (time deadline) for filing personal injury claims, and to put a cap on the amount of damages for out of pocket losses like medical bills and lost wages and/or general damages for the pain and emotional distress caused by a catastrophic injury or death caused by the wrongdoing of another individual or business. The vast majority of “tort reform” advocates are large corporations that have disseminated false information that there is a “tort crisis” in America and that “run away juries” must be kept “in check”. In fact, civil lawsuits related to personal injury claims and average jury verdicts have been declining for almost three decades and now constitute a mere 4-5 % of the total number of civil claims being filed in the U.S. (the vast majority of which are business to business disputes and not injury or death claims).

Published on: March 5, 2014

California Highway Patrol Reminds Us – Drowsy Driving Causes Auto Accidents!

by Steven M. Sweat

California Highway Patrol has appropriately chosen this week (designated Sleep Awareness Week by the National Sleep Foundation) to remind Californians about the dangers of drowsy driving. For the latest year where statistics are available (2011), CHP estimates the following:

Sleep deprivation of drivers resulted in 3,700 accidents in the Golden State
Sleepy drivers caused 2,200 people to be injured

Published on: February 20, 2014

California Homeowner Liability for Injuries at Social Gatherings

by Steven M. Sweat

The California Supreme Court is set to decide a case which may expand the liability of California homeowners for social gatherings where alcohol is served and people sustain injuries or are killed. The case was filed on behalf of a party-goer who was killed at a social event hosted by the homeowner’s teenage children and has been litigated and appealed from the trial court level all the way to the Cal. Sup. Ct. (See Los Angeles Times story here).

Legal Background of Social Host Liability and Immunity Laws in California

Prior to the early to mid 1970’s, California case law had several opinions which held party hosts liable for serving alcohol if this resulted in injury or death to any of the attendees to the party. (E.g. Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 144 – California Supreme Court held that a non-commercial supplier of alcohol [apartment complex owner and manager] could be held liable for injuries caused by drunken participants to third parties harmed by the intoxicated person). The California Legislature decided that it wanted to limit such legal exposure for social hosts and amended California Civil Code 1714 to read as follows:

Published on: February 15, 2014

California Personal Injury Laws | Famous Cases | Rowland v. Christian

by Steven M. Sweat

This is another in my continuing series of blogs about California personal injury cases that set precedents and established law across the U.S. Today, I discuss the seminal California Supreme Court premises liability case of Rowland v. Christian 69 Cal.2d 108 .

Traditional “Common Law” Categories of People Coming Onto Land And The Duty of the Landlord to Those Entrants

American Tort Law has always required landowners or lessees to protect people coming onto their property to some degree or another. If a person is injured while on the property of another, the law has required that the injured person be compensated for medical bills, pain and suffering, lost income and other damages if it can be shown that the property owner was negligent. American jurisdictions, however, have sought to balance the interests of landowners with the rights of persons injured upon their property. Traditionally, under the so-called “common law” that developed in the U.S. from the original English law, all states put persons coming onto property who sustained injury into one of three categories: Licensees, Invitees and Trespassers. Invitees were persons invited onto the property to “do business” and there with the owner’s consent such as patrons of retail establishments. Licensees were persons on the property with the permission of the landowner but, for their own purpose such as a repairman or even a social guest and, trespassers were people who had entered the property with no express or implied permission. The law required a property owner to safeguard the well being of invitees by making the property safe for their use. Therefore, landowners were charged with the highest duty of protection for invitees. With regard to licensees, landowners or occupiers were required to only protect and warn regarding known dangerous conditions on the property. Trespassers were afforded the least protection and the landowner was only rarely liable for “intentional, willful or wanton” conduct on his or her part which caused injury to the person there without permission.