Articles Posted in Premises Accidents

Published on:

In some car accidents in California, third parties might be partially at fault for failing to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable injuries. In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Superior Court, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. F087132, the California Court of Appeal considered whether Union Pacific Railroad could be held negligent for its failure to remove a tree that was located within the clear zone next to a highway that was involved in a fatal wreck.

Factual and Procedural Background

Robert and Elise Sandford were driving a motorhome north on State Route 99 near Madera, California on May 25, 2016, when they struck a Freightliner truck driving north on the highway driven by Deon Detes Abrams, Sr. The collision caused both vehicles to leave the road and hit a tree on adjacent property owned by Union Pacific Railroad Co. The vehicles burst into flames, and all of the occupants of both died.

Published on:

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:

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:

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.

Published on:

In California, bars, restaurants, and other establishments that are open to the public owe a duty of care to patrons to keep them reasonably safe and free from danger. This includes a duty to keep customers safe from other, potentially dangerous customers. In

Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge Inc., Ca. Ct. App. Case No. G061255, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the duty a bar owed to a guest who was stabbed to death in a fight an hour after he left the bar when the original fight began inside of the bar.

Factual and Procedural Background

Published on:

In California, people and entities who own or are in control of property are legally obligated to maintain it in a reasonably safe condition to prevent lawfully present parties from suffering foreseeable injuries from known dangers that might be present. This duty extends both to the owners of the property and those who control it, including businesses and private property owners. Apartment and condominium tenants might have a duty to warn visitors about dangerous conditions they know about within their premises but might not have a legal duty to maintain or warn common areas of the property over which they have no control.

In Moses v. Roger-McKeever, Cal. Ct. App. Case. No. A164405, the California Court of Appeal considered whether a condominium tenant had a legal duty to warn a visitor about the conditions of a stairwell and entryway leading to her condominium and/or to maintain and repair the allegedly dangerous condition that existed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Published on:

Going to the movies is a fun and popular pastime for many people, but it can quickly turn into a nightmare if you experience a slip and fall accident. Slip and falls are one of the most common types of accidents that can occur at movie theaters, and they can cause serious injuries. In this blog post, we’ll discuss what you need to know about slip and falls at movie theaters and what steps you should take if you are involved in such an incident.

Common Causes of Slip and Falls in Movie Theaters

Slip and falls can happen anywhere, but they are particularly common in movie theaters because of the dark and crowded environment. Some of the most common causes of slip and falls in movie theaters include:

Published on:

slip-fall-accident-lawyerIn California, when an employee negligently creates a dangerous condition on the premises of their employer and fails to correct it, the employee’s knowledge of the dangerous condition is imputed to the employer. Employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees while they are working. In Perez v. Hibachi Buffet, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B304824, the Court of Appeal considered a case to determine whether a jury’s verdict in favor of a plaintiff who had been injured in a slip and fall in spilled liquid in a hallway was based on a reasonable inference instead of impermissible speculation.[1]

Factual and Procedural Background

Hibachi Buffet is a restaurant with seating for 200 guests. Jorge Perez was a customer who went to the restaurant for lunch. During his visit, he walked up a hallway to the restroom and adjusted his dentures. When he entered the hallway to go to the restroom, the floor tiles were dry. After he left the restroom, there was a spill of liquid on the hallway floor that he slipped in and fell hard on the tiled surface, sustaining serious injuries.

Published on:

Costco-Accident-Attorneys-CaliforniaBusinesses owe a duty of care to their customers to keep their premises reasonably safe. This duty includes a duty to inspect the premises and promptly correct any hazardous conditions that might be discovered. In Hassaine v. Club Demonstration Services, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. D079396, the Court of Appeal considered whether an independent contractor demonstrating products inside of a larger store also owed a duty of care to customers extending to the entire premises.

Factual and procedural background

Club Demonstration Services, Inc. (CDS) contracted with Costco to demonstrate products to customers shopping in Costco stores. CDS employees would demonstrate products to customers while stationed at various demonstration tables.

Published on:

California-Swap-Meet-Accident-AttorneysProperty owners owe a duty of care to keep their premises reasonably safe for visitors and those who come to their properties for lawful business purposes. They also have a duty to warn people on their premises about dangers that are not open and obvious that could foreseeably cause harm. In Zuniga v. Cherry Avenue Auction, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. F074802 & F078557, the court considered whether a property owner was liable to a vendor who rented space at a swap meet who was electrocuted when the vendor’s flagpole came into contact with an overhead power line.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Araceli Zuniga and Jose Flores were a couple who married in 2009. Shortly after marrying, the couple began renting space to sell merchandise at the Cherry Avenue Auction, which is an outdoor swap meet in the Los Angeles area that holds events on Tuesdays and Saturdays from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Vendors pay fees ranging from $25 to $100 to rent space at the swap meets, and vendors erect booths with poles and fabric banners to attract customers.

Contact Information