California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: September 27, 2024

California Nursing Home Arbitration Agreement Not Enforceable for Wrongful Death Claims

Many California nursing homes ask residents or their family members to sign arbitration agreements as a part of the admissions process. These agreements purport to mandate arbitration instead of litigation when disputes arise. Some nursing homes try to force people into arbitration over nursing home abuse claims. However, arbitration agreements must be valid, enforceable, and conscionable to be enforced. In Maxwell v. Atria Management Company, LLC, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A168043, the Court of Appeal decided whether a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration was valid when two adult children held separate powers of attorney and there were questions about whether the agreement was properly executed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Trudy Maxwell lived in Atria Park, a nursing home operated by Atria Management Company, LLC in San Mateo. In 1999, she had signed a durable power of attorney that named her husband as her agent-in-fact with her son, James Maxwell the III, named as the successor, and Marybeth as the second successor in the interest of the DPOA. In 2005, Trudy signed an advanced healthcare directive in which she named her husband as her agent-in-fact for healthcare decisions and listed her son, James Maxwell III, as the first alternate and her daughter, Marybeth, as the second alternate.

Published on: September 23, 2024

How Long Does It Typically Take to Settle a Personal Injury Case in California?

by Steven M. Sweat

Personal injury cases can be a complicated and lengthy process that often leaves individuals questioning how long they will wait for a resolution. In California, the timeline for settling a personal injury case is influenced by various factors, making it essential for plaintiffs to understand what to expect throughout this journey. Knowing the average duration can provide peace of mind during an inherently stressful period.

The duration of a personal injury case can vary significantly based on numerous elements, including the nature of the injuries sustained, the complexity surrounding liability, and how well all parties cooperate. Additionally, the availability of crucial evidence can either expedite or prolong the settlement process. Understanding these factors offers invaluable insight into the intricacies involved in resolving personal injury claims.

In this article, we will explore the typical timeline for settling personal injury cases in California. We’ll break down the phases of the process—from initial consultations to potential litigation—and provide clarity on the various elements that might influence how long it takes to reach a conclusion. By highlighting these aspects, we aim to equip readers with the knowledge they need to navigate their personal injury claims effectively.

Published on: August 5, 2024

California Court Rules on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

by Steven M. Sweat

When someone witnesses their loved one being seriously injured because of the negligent actions of another person or entity, they have a right to pursue compensation for the negligent infliction of emotional distress when what they witnessed traumatizes them. While this cause of action is typically used in cases involving someone who visually witnesses an incident and its aftermath, the California Supreme Court recently considered a case in which a woman’s mother heard the sounds of a serious car crash and was traumatized when she realized her daughter had suffered serious injuries. In Downey v. City of Riverside, Cal. Supreme Ct. Case No. S280322, the California Supreme Court decided whether the cause of action requires the plaintiff to have immediate awareness of the defendant’s negligence that caused their loved one’s accident and injuries.

Factual and Procedural Background

Jayde Downey was giving her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, driving directions on her cell phone while Vance was driving. Vance was driving near the intersection of Via Zapata and Canyon Crest Drive at the time. While giving her instructions, Downey heard Vance exclaim “Oh!” followed by the sounds of breaking glass and crunching metal, so she immediately knew her daughter had been involved in a car crash. Since Vance did not respond any further, Downey knew that she had likely suffered severe injuries in the crash that prevented her from talking. A passerby picked up the phone and told Downey to stop talking because he needed to try to find her daughter’s pulse.

Published on: July 19, 2024

Understanding Motorcycle Lane Splitting in California

by Steven M. Sweat

Motorcycle lane splitting, the practice of riding a motorcycle between lanes of slow or stopped traffic, has been a topic of much debate among motorists, motorcyclists, and legislators. In California, it’s not only a common sight but also a legal maneuver under specific conditions. This article delves into the legalities, safety aspects, and the relevant California Vehicle Codes (CVC) governing lane splitting.

The Legal Landscape

California is the first and only state in the United States to explicitly legalize lane splitting. The practice was formally recognized by the state legislature in 2016 with the passage of Assembly Bill 51, which added Section 21658.1 to the California Vehicle Code. This section empowers the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of both motorcyclists and other motorists.

Published on: June 27, 2024

The Dangers of Head-On Collisions in California

by Steven M. Sweat

Head-on collisions are among the most dangerous types of motor vehicle accidents, often resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. In California, a state known for its extensive network of highways and roads, these accidents pose a significant threat to drivers and passengers alike. Understanding the causes, consequences, and preventive measures of head-on collisions is essential for promoting road safety. This blog post delves into the dangers of head-on collisions in California and offers practical advice on how to avoid them.

Understanding Head-On Collisions

A head-on collision occurs when two vehicles traveling in opposite directions crash into each other frontally. The force of impact is often immense due to the combined speed of both vehicles, making these accidents particularly catastrophic. Several factors contribute to the occurrence of head-on collisions, including driver error, road conditions, and environmental factors.

Published on: June 12, 2024

Construction Worker Barred from Suing for Personal Injury

by Steven M. Sweat

In some situations, an employee of a subcontractor on a worksite might be able to file a lawsuit against the employer of another worker who injures them through third-party liability. However, the California Supreme Court has previously held that a company that hires an independent contractor is generally not liable to third parties injured because of the contractor’s negligence while working. In CBRE v. Superior Court of San Diego County, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. D083130, the Court of Appeal decided whether a worker who was injured on a worksite could file a lawsuit against the company that hired the general contractor that subcontracted with the worker’s employer when the worker was shocked by a live wire.

Factual and Procedural Background

Jake Johnson was an electrical foreman employed by PCF Electric (PCF). Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI) owned an office building that needed renovations to prepare for a new tenant. PRI signed the lease agreement with the new tenant on April 9, 2019, with the move-in scheduled for June 1. CBRE managed the building owned by PRI. PRI accepted a bid by Crew Builders to serve as the general contractor and perform the upgrades, and Crew hired PCF Electric as a subcontractor to perform the electrical work.

Published on: May 7, 2024

Understanding California’s Laws on Personal Injury: A Comprehensive Guide

by Steven M. Sweat

Personal injury law in California is designed to protect individuals who have been physically or psychologically injured due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another party. Navigating the complexities of these laws is crucial for anyone involved in a personal injury case or those simply seeking knowledge about their rights and responsibilities under California law. This guide offers a detailed exploration of personal injury laws in the Golden State.

What Constitutes a Personal Injury?

In California, a personal injury refers to any harm caused to an individual as a result of an accident or injury. This encompasses a range of issues from physical injuries, emotional distress, to mental suffering. The most common scenarios leading to personal injuries include automobile accidents, slip and fall incidents, workplace injuries, defective products, and medical malpractice.

Published on: February 21, 2024

Why You Need a Skilled Accident Attorney in California: Navigating the Aftermath of a Car Accident

by Steven M. Sweat

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: November 6, 2023

Who’s Responsible When a Service Technician Gets Injured at a Client’s Home?

by Steven M. Sweat

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: October 24, 2023

California Landlord Can Be Liable for Toxic Mold Based Upon Expert Testimony

by Steven M. Sweat

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.