Articles Posted in Premises Accidents

Published on:

Lowes Hardware, Accidents, Injury, Attorney, California

Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse exterior. Lowe’s is an American chain of retail home improvement stores in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

As a Lowes hardware accident attorney in California, I know that Lowes Companies, Inc. is big business in the Golden State. The hardware, appliance and home improvement store operator has 1,140 stores in the United States, 40 stores in Canada and another 10 in Mexico. The company has plans to open another 150 stores in Australia under a different name. Lowes is number 50 on the Fortune 500 list, and only Home Depot sells more hardware, appliance and home improvement products than Lowes.

Lowes operates 111 stores in California. Only Texas and Florida have more. As a majority shareholder, the company also operates more than 70 neighborhood hardware and backyard stores known as Orchard Supply Hardware that it acquired in 2013. Nearly all of those stores are in California too.

Published on:

Construction Site, Accident, Injury, Attorney, Los Angeles, CaliforniaOn October 20, 2011, a young California man, who was employed as a union carpenter for Ghilotti Construction, fell and injured his back while working on a bridge. The incident occurred as the result of a piece of uncapped rebar snagging the worker’s pant leg and causing him to fall. He was wearing a 50 pound utility belt at the time of the fall, and his leg remained about two feet in the air, both of which exacerbated the injury he sustained.

The carpenter (plaintiff) did not report that he was injured at that time, but his foreman observed the fall and remarked that it looked like it hurt, although he denied making the comment later at trial. The plaintiff and the foreman both testified at trial that workers did not like to report workplace injuries for fear of reprimand and/or losing their jobs.

The plaintiff returned to work the day following the incident, but became concerned when he was unable to lift a 20-pound pipe, an action that he normally could complete with ease. The plaintiff’s foreman claimed that the plaintiff said that he had been hurt at home and that he was not aware of any injury sustained at the job, but that claim was negated when the foreman’s friend and neighbor testified that the foreman knew of the injury and was concerned about losing his job for letting it occur on his shift.

Published on:

eye injury, lawyer, attorney, California, Los AngelesInjuries to the eyes are very serious and often can be hard to treat. The eye is a very delicate organ and the bone and muscle structure around the eye can easily be damaged. Injuries to the eyes can lead to changes in physical appearance of the face, changes to vision, and possibly blindness.

Types Of Eye Injuries And Their Causes

The most common injuries that occur to an eye are objects that pierce the eye during a fall or in an accident. The second leading cause of eye injuries is blunt trauma that causes damage to the eyes or the orbital socket area surrounding the eyeball. Blunt trauma to the eye is commonly associated with a slip and fall incident or being hit in the face during an altercation.

Published on:

Bus Stop, Accident, Claims, CaliforniaOn July 30, 2015 a verdict was finally given regarding a case of a 15 year old boy who died after being hit by a car at a dangerous crossing while heading for the school bus stop in San Bernardino County California. The jury awarded the adoptive mother of the boy $20,000,000.00 for her losses.

Summary Of Facts In The Case

In December of 2010, the 15 year old high school sophomore was on his way to his designated school bus stop which required him to cross an uncontrolled five-lane highway. This bus stop was designated by the school system and was the only stop that the young man could use to get to school. During his attempt to cross the highway, the boy was struck by a vehicle and suffered catastrophic injuries. This young man slipped into a coma and died from his injuries 15 days later.

Published on:

Dangerous Property, Death Claims, CaliforniaAccording to the latest investigation, rotted wood beams were the cause of a balcony collapse that killed six college students in Berkeley California.  The students were having a party and many were gathered on the upper floor of a 176 unit apartment building.  A probe was launched by the Building and Safety Division into the cause of the collapse.  It was noted that the joists that were supposed to be supporting the balconies, which extended out of the side of the building were completely dry rotted.

What is the duty of an apartment owner in California to inspect their property and make it safe?

This tragic incident raises the question of what legal duty the owner and/or maintenance company for an apartment building has to inspect their property and make it safe.  California law on this issue is as follows:

Published on:

Home Depot, California, Accident, AttorneyA correctional officer was shopping in a Home Depot store in California when a palm tree for sale fell onto her back, which caused her injuries requiring surgery and left her unable to work. A welder in Boston broke his shoulder after falling off a ladder purchased from a Home Depot when the top rung collapsed. A man driving in Tennessee was hit head-on by a Home Depot delivery driver nearly costing him his life.

What do these people have in common besides their connection to Home Depot? They all received six-figure payouts from the company.

Regular Home Depot shoppers got a shock last year when the company revealed that customers’ credit card data had been compromised, but that isn’t the only accident the company is trying to clean up. The trend of customers incurring injuries at the retail chain’s stores or from using their products has been less high-profile.

Published on:

Hotel Accidents; California; Personal Injury LawI saw an interesting appellate decision out of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal (Southern California) regarding tort liability of hotel operators.  The case was Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, Inc. – decision rendered October 31, 2014 (Reference Daily Appellate Report @ 14737).

Facts of the Case: On October 5, 2008, Jeff and Nan Lawrence checked into the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club Hotel with their three sons.  This was a family vacation and a celebration of the sixth birthday of their two twin boys.  Nan made a request to be placed on the first floor of the hotel but, at the time of check-in, was informed that there were no first floor rooms and was given a room on the second story of the building.  Nan opened the window in their room to hear the ocean.  The three boys were playing and eating grapes inside the room.  Jeff was working on his computer and Nan was planning a schedule when they heard a scream from one of the children.  They ran to the window to find that their son, Michael, had fallen out of the window and onto the concrete pavement below.  Michael suffered major head and brain injuries.

It appeared that when the little boy fell against the window, the screen popped out and fell to the ground.  The window sill was approximately 25 inches above the floor and about 4-6 inches deep.  The plaintiff testified in a deposition that he had placed his foot on the window screen and leaned forward to look out of the window just before falling out.

Published on:

Dodger Stadium Assault LawyerThe 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:

California, Law, Personal Injury, Serving AlcoholThe 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:

injury on property in CAThis 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.

Contact Information