California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: September 12, 2013

Michael Jackson Wrongful Death Case Will Go To The Jury For A Decision

CNN reported today that the Michael Jackson wrongful death case will go to a jury for a decision. The attorneys for the defendant, AEG Entertainment Group (AEG), filed a motion to have the case dismissed but, this was overruled. (See full CNN report here: Michael Jackson trial). The jury trial has been going on since late April of this year and countless witnesses have presented testimony for the plaintiffs (the Jackson family) and the defense, AEG. There is some indication that Michael Jackson’s mother may be recalled as a witness and then both sides will present closing arguments and the jury will render a verdict. In order for the Jackson family to prevail, the jury will need to decide that AEG was negligent in hiring, supervising or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray, who has been criminally convicted of providing a lethal overdose of narcotics to Michael, thereby causing his death. I wanted to explore what California law requires for proving such a case in this post.

What Elements Will the Michael Jackson Jury Need to Decide Were Proven By the Evidence to Hold AEG Liable for Negligence?

As with any trial by jury in the State of California, the jury will be instructed on the law by the judge through pre-approved jury instructions. The principal jury instruction in play for purposes of holding AEG liable for Jackson’s death will be California Civil Jury Instruction 426, which requires the following:

Published on: August 30, 2013

Employer Held Liable For Employee Getting Drunk At A Company Party And Causing A Fatal Car Accident

by Steven M. Sweat

The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District recently ruled that an employer may be held legally liable for an employee getting drunk at a company party and causing a fatal car accident. The case is entitled, Purton v. Marriott International Inc. (for a PDF of the full court opinion, click here).

Facts of the Case: Michael Landri was employed as a bartender for the Marriott Del Mar Hotel in San Diego, CA. The hotel was having its annual holiday party and Michael decided to “get the party started early” by consuming a couple of shots of Jack Daniels and some beer at home before leaving to go to the affair being held at the hotel. At the event, he continued to consume alcohol, including hard liquor, being served by one of the hotel managers who was acting as a bartender for the event. He apparently brought a flask with him to the party and the hotel manager filled the flask for him “to go.” After the party, another hotel employee drove a group of workers to Landri’s house. Landri stayed about 20 minutes without consuming any more alcohol and then attempted to drive a co-worker home. Landri drove reportedly at speeds upwards of 100 mph, rear ended a car and killed the other driver. His blood alcohol content was measured at 0.16 and he was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter and sentenced to 6 years in prison. The family of the slain victim sued both him and his employer, Marriott Hotels. The trial court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case on the basis that even the facts as viewed most favorable to the victim’s family would not be sufficient to hold the hotel liable for wrongful death.

Legal Issues: The main legal issue in this case stems from the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior (a Latin phrase which literally translates, “let the master answer”) or vicarious liability. This is the legal theory by which an employer (or “principal”) can be held responsible for the acts, errors or omissions of their employee (or “agent”). Under California law, vicarious liability requires (at its most fundamental level) the proof of two elements as follows: (1) that the wrongdoer was an employee, agent, or acting on behalf of the employer/principal; and (2) at the time of the wrongful act, error or omission, the employee/agent was acting within the “course and scope” of the employment or agency relationship. (See: California Civil Jury Instruction 3701 based upon California Civil Code 2295, et.seq. and related statutes and cases. A related issue was was whether the employer is responsible when the wrongful acts alleged (in this case consumption of alcohol followed by driving) occur some on “company time” and some on the employee’s “own time.”

Published on: August 28, 2013

“Look Both Ways Before You Cross the Street and …. STOP TEXTING!”

by Steven M. Sweat

We’ve all heard the adage “look both ways before you cross the street” from the time we were children. We heard it from our parents and teachers and it used to be that was enough but, recent studies are showing more teenagers and young adults being distracted by electronic devices in and around areas of high pedestrian traffic including crosswalks throughout the United States. In fact, according to a recent story by CBS News based upon National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the incidents of children, middle schoolers and high school students being distracted by headphones, smartphones, and the like is at an alarming rate. (See story here).

The statistics cited in this article are alarming:

According to 2011 statistics, there were approximately 69,000 pedestrian incidents involving injury in the U.S. last year 4,400 of these pedestrian mishaps resulted in a death and 11,000 of these persons injured or killed were under the age of 14.

Published on: August 14, 2013

Bike v. Pedestrian Fatality in San Francisco Shows Importance of Cyclists Knowing the Rules of the Road

by Steven M. Sweat

San Francisco, even more so than many other cities in California including Los Angeles, has become more and more a city of bike riders. Cyclists are beginning to commute more to work and home in the “City by the Bay” but, unfortunately, aggressive bike riding recently led to the death of a pedestrian and caused an fairly uncommon scenario, namely, a biker being charged with vehicular manslaughter.

On the morning of March 29th, a software developer by the name of Chris Bucchere was commuting to work on his bike. As he approached the intersection in an area of the city used by many pedestrians, he ran through a red light and struck a 71 year-old man attempting to cross the street. Nearby surveillance cameras caught the incident on tape allowing officials to estimate the cyclist’s speed at approximately 35 miles per hour or more. A story in the New York Times attributed statements to the cyclist as follows: “I laid it down and just plowed through the crosswalk in the least crowded place I could find.” In a fairly unprecedented move, the bike rider was later charged and entered a plea agreement on criminal charges of vehicular manslaughter.

What Can This Incident Teach Us About The Laws As They Relate to Bicycles and Persons Traveling on Foot?

Published on: August 8, 2013

“Stop on Red” Week Is A Grave Reminder of How Many Auto Accidents Are Caused by Running Red Lights

by Steven M. Sweat

August 4-10, 2013 has been designated by numerous public safety organizations as “Stop on Red” week to raise awareness of auto accidents caused by people running red lights. It is estimated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that running red lights is the number one cause of traffic collisions in urban areas like San Diego, Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area every year. In fact, the statistics are startling:

You are more likely to be injured or killed by a person running a red light than any other accident scenario
Running red lights cause more crashes in urban areas in the U.S. than anything else.

Published on: August 3, 2013

Should causing a car accident from texting and driving warrant punitive damages under California law?

by Steven M. Sweat

Why are so many car accidents caused by texting and driving and does California law prohibit the practice?

The statistics are startling. It is estimated by various studies conducted and/or examined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that there are over a thousand people every day injured and 8-10 killed every day in the United States by drivers distracted by cell phone use. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 80 percent of accidents and 65 percent of near crashes are the result of some type of distraction which takes the drivers eyes off the road, their mind off of driving and / or their hands off the steering wheel. The problem is particularly acute with teenage and young adult drivers which were already a vulnerable segment of society with estimates of one third of all deaths occurring between age 15-20 coming from motor vehicle accidents. However, it is not limited to young persons in that various surveys estimate that between 35 and 50 percent of adults have admitted to using their mobile device while operating a car.

For these reasons, 41 states, The District Of Colombia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have all passed laws which prohibit drivers from using a cell phone to send emails or text messages while operating a motor vehicle. California passed such legislation in 2008 and 2009. California Vehicle Code §23123, prohibits all drivers from using a wireless telephone unless they phone is equipped with a hands-free feature such as bluetooth except in emergency situations. California Vehicle Code §23124 prohibits all persons under the age of 18 from using a wireless device even if it it equipped with a hands-free feature except for emergency purposes. These provisions provide for penalties including fines for violations.

Published on: July 15, 2013

Why did the Trayvon Martin wrongful death suit settle for over $1 Million, if George Zimmerman was found not guilty?

by Steven M. Sweat

Americans seem very divided, to say the least, about the recent not guilty jury verdict for George Zimmerman related to the death of Trayvon Martin. Indeed, this has been one of the most emotionally charged cases in recent years. One thought I had as an attorney that has handled both civil and criminal cases is that some people may be thinking about the differences between the civil, wrongful death claims brought by Martin’s family and the criminal prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman. In Early April of this year, it was reported by the local newspapers in Florida that the parents of Trayvon Martin reached a settlement in their civil lawsuit against the homeowner’s association where Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain for approximately $1,000,000.00 (although the exact amount was confidential). (See Footnote 1). Then, as we all now, Zimmerman was found not guilty of the criminal charges (including second degree murder) just this past weekend. So, this leads one to think about these contrasting results.

What is a “burden of proof” and how does this differ between civil and criminal cases? The “burden of proof” is the standard by which a matter must be proven by the evidence at trial. In the case of a criminal prosecution, it is the state bringing the charges who has this burden. In the case of a civil action, it is the “plaintiff” (party seeking money or other damages) that bears this responsibility. Based upon a long series of cases and judicial history, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. “Reasonable doubt” has been further defined as “doubt that would give rise to grave uncertainty”. (See Footnote 2).

By contrast, the “burden of proof” in a civil claim for money or other damages is lower. It is defined differently in different states and jurisdictions, however, most jurisdiction, including California define the civil lawsuit proof standard as “by a preponderance of the evidence” for most types of claims and, the slightly higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for claims for punitive damages (damages meant to punish the defendant rather than just compensate the victim). The “preponderance” standard is further defined as simply having to show, by the evidence, that facts are “more likely true than not true.” (See Footnote 3).

Published on: July 7, 2013

When does a fireworks explosion become negligence under California law?

by Steven M. Sweat

fireworks, fireworks accident attorney, fireworks injury lawyer, California personal injury law When you think about the “Fourth of July”, a few things come to mind like picnics, grilling and watching the fireworks with the kids. Unfortunately, this year’s fireworks display in Simi Valley, CA turned awry as multiple fireworks canisters went off too close to the ground causing explosions and debris to be shot at nearby spectators. The present count of the persons who were injured stands at thirty nine. (See ABC News Footage ). Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. In that there was a similar mishap at last year’s pyrotechnics display near San Diego, CA, I wanted to explore the legal issues associated with these types of incidents.

The legal issues presented by these and other similar incidents involving fireworks malfunction are what constitutes negligence and what legal standard applies. A related issue is whether the standard for negligence differs between the various “players” in these types of displays including the manufacturer of the fireworks, the pyrotechnic professionals hired to launch the fireworks and the entity who sponsors or sets up the event.

California, like many other states, defines “negligence” as an injury or damage caused by a lack of “ordinary care.” However, like many jurisdictions, California holds persons engaging in “dangerous activities” to a higher standard of having to use “extreme caution.” For example, in the case of Warner v. Santa Catalina Island Company, 44 Cal.2d 310, 317, the owner of a shooting gallery was held to this higher standard when bullets malfunctioned and injured a patron. The court reasoned that operation of a business involving explosive materials like bullets required a higher duty to inspect and test the ammunition for close range shooting prior to distributing it for use. Therefore, it would appear that the persons responsible for setting up the launch and ignition of fireworks may also be held to this standard of “extreme care.” As stated by the California Supreme Court, “the care required must be in proportion to the danger to be avoided and the consequences that might reasonably be anticipated”.