California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: March 11, 2022

Department Responsible for Officer’s Failure to Secure His Gun

California employers are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their employees while they are acting within the scope and course of their jobs and negligently cause injuries to others. However, employers are generally not liable for the actions of their employees when they are off duty. In Perez v. City and County of San Francisco, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A161279, the California Court of Appeal considered whether the city was vicariously liable for the actions of a police officer who left his weapon unsecured in his vehicle at home.

Factual and Procedural Background

Marvin Cabuntala was employed as a police officer with the San Francisco Police Department. The agency issued service weapons to its officers and also had the policy to allow officers to carry guns as secondary weapons as long as they were approved by the department. Cabuntala owned a handgun that was approved as a secondary weapon. He regularly carried it in his vehicle and also used it at home to protect his family.

Published on: January 20, 2022

California Farmer Brings Paraquat Pesticide Injury Claim

by Steven M. Sweat

Paraquat pesticides have long been used by farmers and others in the agricultural industry because of their ability to kill weeds and pests. However, these pesticides have been linked to an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Many lawyers have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of paraquat pesticides on behalf of agricultural workers who have developed Parkinson’s disease after chronic exposure. When plaintiffs are age 70 or older and have deteriorating health conditions that threaten their interests in the outcome of litigation, they have a right to request the court provide them with a preference and set trials within 120 days. In Isaak v. Superior Court, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A163675, the Court of Appeal considered whether the preference rule applies even when a coordinated proceeding has been established under the Joint Civil Commission Proceeding (JCCP) rules.[1]

Factual and Procedural Background

George Isaak, an 84-year-old retired farmer, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in the summer of 2020 after years of using paraquat pesticides for agricultural purposes on his fields. This type of pesticide has been linked to Parkinson’s disease. Isaak suffered multiple impairments as a result of his condition, including cognitive impacts, fatigue, weakness, the inability to walk, and incontinence.

Published on: January 11, 2022

New California Traffic Laws for 2022

by Steven M. Sweat

Californians should be aware of several new laws that are effective in 2022. Multiple laws that were passed by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Newsom affect motorists and pedestrians, and most of them were effective as of Jan. 1, 2022. Here are some of these new laws and the changes that you can expect during the new year.

Reduced Speed Limits in Certain Situations

Assembly Bill 43 was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Newsom on Oct. 8, 2021. This law amended several statutes and added some new statutes to the California Vehicle Code. Under AB43, local authorities have been granted the authority to reduce speed limits on state highways in areas where doing so is necessary to protect bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable populations from being injured in collisions with cars.

Published on: December 13, 2021

New California Law Allows Pain and Suffering Damages in Wrongful Death Claims

by Steven M. Sweat

A law that was recently signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom will make significant changes to survival actions and wrongful death claims and the types of damages that can be recovered in them. The changes to the law might substantially increase the damages that might be recoverable when people are killed as a result of the negligent or wrongful actions of others.

Survival actions are brought by the personal representative or successor in interest of the deceased person’s estate and seek the types of damages the deceased victim could have pursued in a personal injury claim if he or she had survived. By contrast, wrongful death claims are brought by the surviving family members of deceased victims to recover compensation for the harms they have suffered because of their loved ones’ deaths. The changes to the law affect the types of damages that are recoverable in survival actions brought by the estate for the benefit of the heirs.

Background of the law

Published on: November 29, 2021

California Drowning Case Shows Ambiguity in State Law on Lifeguards

by Steven M. Sweat

In California, many drownings and other types of water accidents happen each year at beaches located across the state. To help to prevent drowning accidents, counties and cities across California’s coastal areas post lifeguards who use jet skis to quickly respond when someone is in trouble in the water. However, a recent California Supreme Court decision revealed the ambiguity in the state’s speed limit laws for watercraft within 100 feet of swimmers or 200 feet of beaches, including jet skis used in water rescues by lifeguards.

Whenever people head to the beach, a lake, or a swimming pool, they need to be aware of the potential risks of drowning that they face. People should always make sure to follow all applicable rules, use life jackets, and avoid drinking when they plan to swim.

Factual and procedural background

Published on: November 15, 2021

Apartment Slaying Example of Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention of an Employee

by Steven M. Sweat

Many people in California have heard the shocking story about 19-year-old Miya Marcano, a Florida college student who was brutally slain by a co-worker. Marcano was initially reported missing by her family when she failed to take a flight home for a planned visit. She worked in the office of an apartment complex located in Orlando, Florida and also lived in an apartment in the complex. Marcano’s family has now filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Arden Villas and its operator for negligent hiring and supervision. The case provides a good illustration of negligent hiring and supervision cases.

Marcano’s case

Miya Marcano was a 19-year-old student who was studying at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida. She lived and worked at the Arden Villas, an apartment complex where she was employed in the leasing office.

Published on: September 15, 2021

CA Supreme Court Rules on Electrical Burn Injury Work Accident

by Steven M. Sweat

When employees of contractors are injured while performing work on behalf of a third party, they generally cannot hold the company that hired the contractors liable for their injuries. However, exceptions exist when the hirer retains control over the safety conditions of the work environment, fails to disclose a hidden, dangerous condition, or affirmatively contributes to the workers’ injuries. In Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc., Cal. S. Ct., No. S252796 (2021), the California Supreme Court considered whether a hirer has a tort duty to inform individual employees of an independent contractor about hidden safety hazards in the workplace.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Martin Sandoval was an electrical parts specialist who worked for ROS Electrical Supply & Equipment. He was hired by Transpower Testing, Inc. to help Transpower’s president, Frank Sharghi, a licensed electrical engineer, to locate some busbars in the main cogen circuit at Qualcommm Inc.’s campus. Qualcomm had hired Transpower Testing to upgrade the company’s turbines in 2013. Sharghi had previously worked on Qualcomm’s switchgear for more than 20 years.

Published on: August 23, 2021

Is an insurance company required to disclose and tender policy limits in California personal injury cases?

by Steven M. Sweat

Personal-Injury-Claims-Attorneys-California

Is an insurance company required to disclose and tender policy limits in California? When insurance companies receive accident claims that are likely to involve damages far exceeding their policy limits, they are required to try to settle the claims within their insured’s policy limits. In Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto. Club, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. G058189, the Court of Appeal considered whether an insurance company had acted in bad faith when it refused to disclose its insured’s policy limits and to communicate a settlement demand that had been made.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Maryam Hedayati was a 43-year-old woman who had recently graduated from medical school. While taking a break from studying for her medical board exam on Oct. 1, 2012, she took a walk. As she crossed the street in a crosswalk, 45-year-old Maurice Vanwyk struck her with his vehicle. The collision severed one of Hedayati’s legs, shattered the other, and left her in a coma and on life support.

Published on: August 3, 2021

Family Not Allowed to File Lawsuit Under CA Labor Code 3706

by Steven M. Sweat

When people are seriously injured at work, they are generally limited to pursuing remedies under their employers’ workers’ compensation policies. However, when their employers fail to carry workers’ compensation insurance, they can file lawsuits against their employers in court. In the case of Hollingsworth v. Heavy Transport, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B306127, the court considered whether the trial court had erred when it denied a jury trial to determine whether an employer had workers’ compensation insurance or not.

Factual and procedural background

Kirk Hollingsworth was employed by Heavy Transport, Inc. as a maintenance worker. On June 20, 2016, Hollingsworth was called to the scene where a truck hauling a crane had two tires that failed. He changed those two tires and was subsequently called back to the scene after a third tire failed. The third tire had blown out, and its tire treads were wrapped around the axle. When he tried to free the treads from the axle, the truck fell and crushed him, killing him.

Published on: June 3, 2021

California Republican Party Held Responsible in Motorcycle Crash

by Steven M. Sweat

California-Motorcycle-Accident-Attorneys-Lawyers

Under California law, when people are working within the course and scope of their jobs, their employers may be vicariously liable when they negligently injure others. Employers might also be directly liable when their employees injure others when the employers negligently hired, supervised, or retained incompetent or unqualified workers. Recently, the California Republican Party paid a settlement of $11 million after one of its precinct workers caused serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident.[1]

Background of the case

Richard Ruehle was riding his motorcycle on the 91 Freeway in Anaheim on Aug. 5, 2016. A precinct worker who had been hired by Eric Linder’s reelection campaign had knocked on doors all morning and was driving back to work after his lunch break. The worker did not have a driver’s license. He did not check his mirrors or blind spots when he changed lanes, crashing into Ruehle and his motorcycle. The collision left Ruehle with quadriplegia, and he only had limited use of his arms. He will never be able to walk again. Ruehle was also married and had six children and was an avid hiker before his accident. Ruehle filed a lawsuit against both the California Republican Party and Eric Linder’s campaign.